Overall sentiment across the reviews for View Park Convalescent Center is highly mixed but leans negative, with recurring and intense concerns about staffing, cleanliness, and basic care practices offset by pockets of genuinely positive experiences with specific staff members, rehabilitation services, and management. Many reviewers report severe issues—unanswered call lights, delayed assistance, residents in soiled diapers, strong odors, and crowded rooms—that point to systemic operational problems. At the same time, several reviews explicitly praise particular nurses, CNAs, rehab staff, and certain administrators, indicating inconsistency in quality and experience depending on shift, team, or timeframe.
Care quality and staffing emerge as the central and most frequently cited themes. Numerous reviews describe understaffing, high CNA turnover, overworked staff, and an unsafe patient-to-staff ratio. These conditions are blamed for neglected care: delayed responses to buzzers, patients being overlooked, insufficient assistance with hygiene, and inadequate monitoring (including patients wandering). While several reviewers compliment nurses and rehab staff as caring and effective—some calling the rehab "great"—others say that care is inadequate and inconsistent, with 'improper rehab progress' reported by at least one reviewer. The discrepancy suggests that staffing instability and uneven team performance produce widely varying patient outcomes.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and maintenance are other major areas of concern. Multiple reviewers report dilapidated, outdated rooms and furniture, plastic mattress covers or beds without proper bedding, cluttered hallways, and a pervasive strong odor. Some accounts are extreme—describing the environment as "absolutely disgusting," "not cleaned in years," and mentioning health department concerns—while others note that the exterior looks welcoming and that remodeling is planned or underway. Overcrowding is also highlighted (reports of three patients per room), which compounds hygiene, privacy, and infection-control concerns. Conversely, a subset of reviewers describe recent improvements under a new administrator, with on-floor housekeeping and maintenance noted positively, indicating some progress in certain periods or areas.
Staff behavior and culture receive polarized feedback. Several reviews praise management and certain administrators as kind, professional, and understanding; Tara (DSD/administrator) is named positively by at least one reviewer. Other comments cite rude or distracted supervisors, a rude Director of Nursing (DON), and CNAs who are described as the worst, lacking accountability. Reports of staff talking disrespectfully about patients, a loud and "ghetto" atmosphere, and depressed work environments suggest morale issues that can affect care. Communication problems are reported—phone lines disconnected and staff unreachable—further undermining trust in operations and responsiveness.
Services such as dining and activities receive mixed but generally lukewarm mentions. Food is often described as not pleasing with small portions, though activities are available and some residents enjoy them. Positive notes include in-house rehab services and 24-hour nursing coverage (stated), a pleasant receptionist, and a convenient location with nice exterior views from rooms. Medicare acceptance is noted, which may be relevant to prospective residents and families.
Notable patterns: experiences vary strongly by time and staff on duty, producing a wide range of reviewer opinions from "5-star staff" to "worst facility." Several reviewers reference better experiences pre-pandemic or mention improvements under new administration, suggesting the facility's performance may change over time. However, persistent themes—unreliable response to call lights, staffing shortages, hygiene problems, and dated facilities—appear frequently enough to be considered systemic issues that significantly impact resident care and family confidence.
In summary, View Park Convalescent Center has a mix of strengths (compassionate individual staff members, functioning rehab services, some positive administrative changes, and available activities) and serious, recurring weaknesses (staffing instability, delayed or neglected care, cleanliness and maintenance failures, overcrowding, and communication problems). The reviews indicate that quality is inconsistent, sometimes heavily dependent on which staff are on shift or which administrator is in place. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive reports of caring personnel and rehab services against frequent reports of operational and sanitary shortcomings, and monitor recent management changes and remodeling efforts for evidence of sustained improvement.
