Overall sentiment about Gilman Healthcare Center is sharply polarized, with reviews clustering at two extremes: a substantial set of strongly positive accounts praising food, therapy, activities, and some compassionate staff, and a substantial set of strongly negative accounts alleging serious care failures, safety problems, and poor professionalism. This split creates a mixed picture in which strengths are repeatedly praised by some families and residents while other families describe experiences severe enough that they advise avoiding the facility entirely.
Care quality and safety are the most commonly disputed areas. Positive reviews highlight effective rehabilitation and therapy teams that helped residents achieve their goals and return home. Those same positive reviewers often note attentive caregiving, weekly visits with satisfied relatives, and a family-like atmosphere among staff. Conversely, multiple negative reviews allege neglect and abuse, delayed or missed medications, falsified medication records, inadequate follow-up from doctors, and repeated hospitalizations. Specific safety concerns include residents found soaking wet or with cold beds and diapers, improper incontinent care described as "naked under clothes," and repeated falls—some reviewers specifically mention unsafe handling of fall-risk residents and even door confinement as an attempted safety measure. Medication management is flagged repeatedly, with one review explicitly calling out concerns around Depakote and general delays or withdrawal of medications.
Staffing, professionalism, and management receive mixed feedback. Several reviewers praise individual nurses, administrators, and long-term staff as caring, experienced, and responsive; other reviewers report rude, unempathetic, or even hostile employees and administrators who they say do not apologize or address serious incidents. There are reports of agency staff and high staffing turnover that may contribute to inconsistent care. Communication problems are a frequent complaint: families report long phone hold times, poor phone interactions (including misidentification and dementia patients being placed on calls), and POAs feeling dismissed when raising concerns. Billing and transparency issues are also mentioned, with at least one reviewer describing messy billing and limited transparency about care plans and hospitalizations.
Facility condition and services also produce divergent reports. Many reviewers praise the dietary program—describing meals as home-cooked, nutritious, flavorful, and able to accommodate diverse needs—and commend activities and outings (pizza nights, ball games, trips, and special celebration days). Several accounts note recent renovations, clean rooms and bathrooms, and an active calendar of events. However, other reviewers describe portions of the facility as dirty, falling apart, and poorly maintained, and they report missing personal belongings and broken or unsafe equipment such as recliners and wheelchairs. Transportation staff drew criticism in a few reviews as rude.
Allegations of serious misconduct are repeated often enough to be notable; reviewers mention falsified records, staff misconduct, and even allegations that staff fabricated positive reviews. Some callers recommend shutting down the facility and say inspections are inadequate or not acted upon. These are serious claims and are reported as allegations by reviewers rather than independently verified facts; nonetheless, their frequency in the negative reviews indicates that prospective residents and families should seek up-to-date, objective information from inspection reports, ombudsman records, and current state CMS ratings.
In short, Gilman Healthcare Center elicits highly divergent experiences. If considering this facility, families should: (1) tour the facility multiple times and observe mealtimes, activity programs, and staff-resident interactions; (2) ask for recent inspection and enforcement records and current staffing patterns, including agency staff usage; (3) request specifics on medication management processes and how fall-risk residents are handled; and (4) talk with current residents' families, ideally those in similar care programs (short-term rehab vs long-term skilled nursing). The reviews indicate real strengths in dining, therapy, and some compassionate staff, but they also include repeated, detailed allegations of safety and care failures that warrant careful, independent verification before making a placement decision.
