Overall sentiment is mixed and highly polarized: many reviewers praise individual staff members and therapeutic outcomes while a substantial number report serious quality and safety concerns. The most consistent positive thread is that certain nurses, therapists, and support staff deliver compassionate, skilled, and personalized care. Multiple reviewers single out social services (Hazel), activities staff (Imelda, Julie), and named nursing staff as exemplary: they provided dignified treatment, effective wound care, daily OT/PT, help with ventilator weaning, IV therapies, and meaningful family communication (FaceTime, paperwork assistance). Several family members described life‑saving interventions, successful rehab progress, and goal‑oriented therapy that led to measurable improvement. Some rooms have been renovated and some reviewers note daily cleanliness, comfortable beds, warm food, and an improving facility culture under new management.
At the same time, there is a recurring pattern of serious negative reports that cannot be ignored. Understaffing, long response times to call lights, and unresponsiveness are frequent themes; these problems are tied to medication problems (late or missed doses, substitute nurses who cannot find medications) and basic neglect (residents left thirsty or with food trays when they cannot feed themselves). Several reviews allege unclean conditions — including feces observed on floors — and reports of lost personal property (dentures, glasses, purses, electronics). There are also multiple accounts of unprofessional behavior (staff vaping on duty, rude or prejudiced treatment) and communication failures between staff and families. These negatives range from administrative/operational failures (poor communication, misplaced items) to clinical safety concerns (pain medication neglect, limited doctor visits, therapy not provided, and at least one allegation of death related to neglect).
Facility condition and amenities show a split picture: the building is described as old and historic with dated rooms and linens, but renovations are ongoing and some rooms are described as nicely redone. Common areas and the lunch/dining area were identified as needing work by several reviewers even as others praised warm food and recreation activities (movies and popcorn). Management and leadership appear to be changing over time; some reviewers note positive management change, quick responses, and a sense of continuous year‑over‑year improvement, while others assert the facility has a poor reputation, name changes, or even allege fraud — indicating inconsistency in governance and public perception.
A notable pattern is high variability: experiences range from “worst facility” with systemic neglect to accounts of exceptional, attentive care that families felt grateful for. This suggests that outcomes are highly dependent on specific shifts, individual staff members, and possibly which unit/room a resident is placed in. Therapy and rehab can be strong and lead to good results for some residents, while others experience gaps in care, missed medications, and unresponsiveness that prompted transfers to other facilities.
Recommendations for families considering Madison Grove Post Acute based on these reviews: (1) verify current staffing levels and medication administration protocols during a visit; (2) meet the social worker and therapy team (Hazel, therapists) to confirm services and schedules; (3) ask about recent management changes and quality improvement metrics; (4) secure valuables or get a clear property policy to avoid lost items; (5) inspect room and common‑area cleanliness and inquire about renovation timelines for dining/lounge areas; and (6) request references or talk with recent families about consistency of care across shifts. In short, Madison Grove shows clear strengths in individual caregiver compassion and rehab capability, but families should be cautious because reports show persistent operational and safety concerns tied to staffing, medication management, cleanliness, and inconsistent professionalism.
