Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed: several reviewers praise the interpersonal care and activity programming, while others raise significant concerns about facility condition, staff behavior, and safety. Positive comments emphasize attentive, friendly staff who listen, good food, and a range of activities that keep residents engaged. Negative comments focus on cleanliness problems in public areas (notably urine odors), aging infrastructure, and troubling allegations about employee conduct and responsiveness.
Care quality and staff performance emerge as a primary theme with divergent experiences. Multiple reviews highlight staff who are prompt, attentive, and responsive — reviewers specifically remark that staff listened and provided thoughtful care. At the same time, other reviews allege poor treatment of residents, long waits for basic needs such as restroom assistance, and a general sense of distrust toward facility operations and personnel. The presence of both positive and negative descriptions suggests inconsistent care experiences depending on shift, unit, or individual staff members.
Facility condition and cleanliness are another major area of contrast. Some reviewers describe parts of the center as very clean, but several reports note a persistent urine smell at the entrance and in hallways, and visible wear and tear on floors, walls, and ceilings. The main portion of the building is described as having a hospital-like feel and a lack of freshness, while private single rooms are called nice and comfortable. Taken together, this indicates that private living spaces may be better maintained than some common areas, and that the physical plant would benefit from targeted remediation or remodeling.
Activities and resident engagement are generally reported positively. Reviews list games, bingo, nature walks, and trips to a store, and say residents were kept busy. However, reviewers also note that COVID alerts limited activities at times, indicating that programming can be curtailed during health-related restrictions. When activities are offered, they appear varied and appreciated by residents.
Dining receives favorable comments, with reviewers saying the food is good. This is one consistent positive across the summaries and may be an important factor in resident satisfaction.
Management and safety concerns appear in multiple reviews and are among the most serious issues raised. Several reviewers explicitly call for remodeling and repairs; others report distrust of the facility. Most alarming are allegations of drug use among employees — a claim that, if accurate, points to severe staffing and oversight problems. Alongside reports of staff treating residents poorly and long waits for assistance, these allegations suggest a need for stronger supervision, staffing policies, and transparent communication from management to restore confidence.
In summary, Parke View Rehabilitation & Care Center shows strengths in personal interactions (for many residents), activity programming, and dining, and offers comfortable single rooms. However, there are repeated and significant concerns about odors in common areas, aging infrastructure, inconsistent staff behavior, operational lapses (including long waits for care), and serious allegations about employee conduct. The pattern in the reviews is one of mixed experiences: some residents and families are satisfied with care and engagement, while others report conditions and behaviors that undermine trust and signal the need for facility improvements, stronger oversight, and remediation of cleanliness and odor issues.
