Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive with strong praise for clinical rehabilitation, compassionate staff, and social engagement, tempered by multiple serious safety and management concerns reported by a minority of reviewers.
Care quality and clinical services are among the most consistently praised features. Many reviewers highlight exceptional physical and occupational therapy outcomes — residents making measurable improvements, regaining strength, and returning home after relatively short stays. The facility’s rehab/therapy department is repeatedly called out as a strength, with several families specifically saying they would choose outpatient therapy again with this provider. In parallel, hospice and chaplain services receive favorable mentions for individualized, compassionate attention. The presence of specialized dementia and memory-care units, including secured units for wanderers and tailored care for different stages of mobility loss, contributes to families feeling the facility is appropriate for cognitively impaired loved ones.
Staff culture is a dominant positive theme. Numerous reviews describe nurses, CNAs, activities staff, dining staff, and administrators as kind, attentive, and family-like; several staff members are named for going above and beyond (Shelby, Brandi Mooneyhan, Mary Ellen, Dawn). Families often report respectful treatment, approachable staff, and clear empathy for both residents and relatives. These personal interactions support a strong sense of community — residents are described as smiling, engaged, and included. Many reviewers emphasize that the staff treated residents with dignity, and that the facility provided emotional support during difficult transitions.
Activities, social programming, and the living environment receive frequent praise. The activity program is characterized as robust and engaging, with on-site events, community outings, beauty shop services, and social opportunities such as breakfasts with friends. Outdoor access and accommodations (like a special outdoor chair) are singled out positively. Several reviewers mention private rooms and a home-like feel, and many families report that the overall resident experience — including food, social engagement, and cleanliness in parts of the facility — was very good.
However, a substantive set of negative reports raises significant concerns about safety, documentation, facility management, and property handling. Multiple reviewers allege situations that range from the kitchen/dietary ignoring dietary restrictions (with claims of resulting weight loss or malnutrition) to a near-injury with a Hoyer lift that left bruising. There are specific, named allegations of unprofessional conduct (a nurse identified as Sue) and multiple reports of poor or delayed responses during urgent resident needs (including a named staff member, Ken). Serious safety lapses are claimed in outlier but alarming incidents: attempted placement in an unlocked wing, a resident missing for hours requiring EMS involvement, and unsafe areas such as an unsecured laundry room. Bed sores, lapses in vitals monitoring, and alleged neglect or long waits for assistance are reported by some families.
Property loss and administrative follow-through are recurring negative themes. Several reviewers reported missing personal items — glasses lost repeatedly, clothing, blankets — and at least one review cites $400 of belongings not reimbursed. Other administrative concerns include poor follow-up on incidents, unanswered calls and voicemails, delayed refunds, and family reports of condolences only being sent by a funeral home rather than facility outreach. These breakdowns in communication and property accountability, even if not universal across reviews, erode trust for affected families.
There is evidence of uneven performance: many families strongly recommend the facility and report life-changing, compassionate care, while a minority describe neglectful conditions, sanitation issues (including reports of roaches and unsanitary bathrooms), and serious safety failures. Staffing stress (attributed in some reviews to Covid-era pressures) is mentioned as a contributing factor to occasional lapses, but the majority of comments continue to praise long-tenured staff and those who consistently provide high-quality care. The facility’s CMS 4-star rating and multiple positive accounts support its role as a viable option for skilled nursing and memory care, yet the severity of some negative reports indicates that management should prioritize addressing the specific safety, documentation, and property-control problems raised.
In summary, Signature HealthCARE at Parkwood appears to deliver strong rehabilitation services, compassionate day-to-day caregiving, and enriching activities that create a family-like atmosphere for many residents. These strengths are repeated across numerous reviews and are the primary reasons families recommend the facility. At the same time, several serious safety, administrative, and sanitation complaints are present in a subset of reviews — including allegations of dietary neglect, lift-related injury, missing residents, bed sores, missing personal items, and poor incident follow-up. These issues warrant prompt managerial attention and transparent remediation to ensure that the positive experiences reported by the majority are not undermined by the severe lapses reported by a minority of families.
