Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed but leans strongly negative. A consistent pattern emerges of sharp contrasts: some reviewers describe Parklands Care Center as a warm, family-like community with excellent therapy services and caring staff, while many others report serious problems with cleanliness, basic care, safety, and management. The most frequent and serious complaints involve unclean and unsanitary conditions, neglect of basic hygiene and wound care, delayed or withheld medications, and poor communication with families—issues that directly affect resident health and safety.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Multiple reviewers raised alarms about neglectful care practices. Reports include residents being left soiled or unbathed, diapers not being changed, withholding of wound creams and pain medication, laxative misuse, UTIs, and even PICC line infection concerns. Several accounts describe rough handling, emergency ambulance transfers, EMT calls citing suspected neglect or abuse, and at least one tragic report of a resident dying alone. Conversely, other reviewers praise the therapy/rehabilitation department for helping patients regain function and cite specific PT staff who 'go above and beyond.' This produces a polarized picture where rehabilitation and some clinical areas appear strong for certain patients, while basic daily nursing care and infection control are reported as unreliable or unsafe by many.
Staff behavior, training, and morale: Staffing emerges as a central theme. Many reviewers report rude, hostile, or unprofessional staff—receptionists and nurses who are curt, on cell phones, or dismissive toward families. Several comments allege staff theft, threats, or deception. Understaffing and low morale are repeatedly cited as contributors to rushed care, missed tasks, and inattentiveness (e.g., nurses 'huddled' instead of supervising, CNAs watching TV while residents need help). At the same time, a substantial subset of reviews praise individual staff members, nursing aides, and therapy teams as compassionate and dedicated. That disparity suggests uneven staffing quality, possible reliance on agency aides, and inconsistent training or supervision.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: Cleanliness and safety are among the most contentious topics. Numerous reviews describe foul odors, roach infestations, reused pillows, soiled drains, dirty showers, and generally filthy floors and outside grounds. Several reviewers mention broken safety systems (e.g., malfunctioning sensor doors) and unsafe situations where patients could open heavy doors. Triple-occupancy rooms, lack of privacy, and in-room amenities (no private showers) are criticized. These sanitation and safety problems, if accurate, present real infection-control and regulatory concerns, and multiple reviewers said they reported or planned to report issues to public health or licensing authorities.
Dining, activities, and quality of life: Opinions on food and activities are split. Some reviewers compliment the food (including homemade soup) and cite an active schedule—daily music, numerous activities, and monthly shopping trips—which contributes to residents enjoying a sense of community. Other reviewers report poor food, minimal or nonexistent activities, and an institutional atmosphere that reduces residents’ independence and emotional well-being. The presence of both positive and negative accounts suggests variability by unit, shift, or time period.
Management, communication, and administrative issues: A recurring complaint is poor communication—families not informed about transfers, lack of responsiveness by phone, and inconsistent or misleading statements from admissions or administrators. Several reviewers accuse management of being money-driven, ignoring complaints, and even lying about physicians' recommendations. A few positive comments note strong leadership (an excellent Director of Nursing cited by name in some reviews) and a supportive workplace in some departments. Allegations of past lawsuits, investigations, and rating manipulation were made by multiple reviewers, adding to the sense of governance and transparency concerns.
Notable patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The reviews show clear internal contradictions—strong rehabilitation and compassionate individual staff on one side, versus pervasive sanitation, neglect, safety, and management failures on the other. These contradictions indicate high variability depending on unit, shift, or which staff are assigned. Prospective residents and families should be cautious: schedule multiple unannounced visits at different times (including nights/weekends), directly observe cleanliness and nurse-to-resident interactions, review recent state inspection and complaint history, ask about staffing ratios and agency staff reliance, get specific written policy details on wound care/medication administration and infection control, confirm rehabilitation goals and typical patient outcomes, and document any promises made by admissions. Families should also verify how the facility handles incident notification, transfers, and communication.
In summary, Parklands Care Center elicits polarized experiences. For some, it functions as a rehabilitative, caring environment with excellent therapy and friendly staff; for many others, it is associated with unacceptable sanitation, neglectful basic care, poor communication, and safety risks. The volume and severity of negative reports—especially those involving hygiene, medication delays, and alleged abuse or neglect—warrant careful scrutiny by regulators and prospective families. At minimum, corroborate current conditions through recent inspection reports and in-person observations before making placement decisions.
