Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed, with many reviewers praising the staff, social environment, cleanliness, and therapy services, while a substantial number of reviews allege serious care, safety, and management problems. Multiple families and residents describe Parkway Care & Rehabilitation Center as welcoming and home-like with compassionate caregivers, active programming, and good rehabilitation services. At the same time, a notable portion of reviews describe incidents and patterns that raise red flags about resident safety, medication practices, hygiene, communication, and administrative accountability.
Care quality and staff performance present a wide spectrum. Positive reports frequently highlight warm, attentive nurses and aides who provide individualized care, listen to families, and create a family-like atmosphere. Several reviewers specifically call out excellent physical and occupational therapy, responsive nursing, reliable transport to medical appointments, and strong hospice support that reduces family stress. Long-tenured staff, an absence of typical nursing-home odors, and an organized, clean environment are cited repeatedly. In some accounts, management—including named administrator Alison De Jong—is described as attentive and communicative, and families say the facility is a top pick for those seeking comfortable, compassionate care.
Contrasting sharply with praise are multiple serious allegations from other reviewers. Several complaints describe abusive behavior by particular staff members (two are referenced by partial names) and assert that management protected those employees rather than addressing the behavior. Reports include removal of mobility aids, threats of physical restraints, forced or unexplained medication, coercion related to financial power of attorney, and claims of drugging or overmedication. These are among the most serious, recurrent concerns and, if accurate, indicate major systemic failures in both staff conduct and oversight. Related safety issues include insulin given without food, falls or increased fall risk, delayed emergency care, and a reported lack of timely physician involvement.
Sanitation and clinical-care practices are another area of divergence. Many reviewers praise the facility as very clean and well-maintained; however, several others report hygiene lapses such as dirty gloves, improper wound care, and sanitation problems. These conflicting views suggest inconsistent adherence to clinical protocols across shifts or teams. Medication handling and administration practices are questioned by multiple reviewers, including allegations of unexplained medications, overmedication, and giving insulin without ensuring food—items that pose real health risks.
Communication and administrative accountability emerge as central themes. Positive comments note helpful communication from executives and nurses, timely updates, and staff who assist families with visits (Zoom or window visits). Conversely, other reviewers report poor communication: missed callbacks, lack of family notification after incidents, false or misleading information, privacy breaches including sharing another patient's information, and patient identity mix-ups. Several families explicitly say administration showed a lack of accountability or failed to investigate or remedy complaints. This inconsistent responsiveness from leadership appears to be a key driver of the polarized experiences described.
Facility features and programming are generally well-regarded among satisfied reviewers: active social calendars, many recreational offerings, outdoor spaces, cozy private rooms, and a cheery entrance. Dining experiences receive mixed remarks—some praise the meals while others point to confusing dining policies and issues related to call button use or staff not responding to dining needs. The facility’s physical condition is similarly mixed in reports: some say it is well-maintained and inviting, while others call parts of it dated.
In summary, the dominant pattern is one of two divergent resident/family experiences at the same site. Many reviews reflect a high-quality, compassionate environment that supports recovery, social engagement, and dignified hospice care. Simultaneously, a significant cluster of reviews alleges serious lapses: abuse or coercion by specific staff, medication and clinical-safety failures, sanitation problems, privacy violations, poor communication, and perceived administrative inaction. These recurrent negative themes—especially allegations of abuse, medication malpractice, and management protecting problematic employees—are critical and warrant prompt, transparent investigation and corrective action to ensure resident safety and restore trust. Conversely, the consistent positive reports about therapy, activities, and caring staff indicate that strengths exist which could be reinforced if leadership addresses the serious concerns raised.
