Overview: The reviews for Overland Park Post Acute present a polarized and time-dependent picture. A substantial portion of reviews describe serious quality and safety problems — including reports of neglect, hygiene failures, poor food service, and unresponsive management — while a more recent cluster of reviews since a change in ownership (noted as July 2024) highlight meaningful improvements in staffing, leadership, and clinical outcomes. Taken together, the pattern indicates a facility that had significant operational and care shortcomings historically, with multiple reviewers reporting critical incidents, but also one that several families and reviewers now report is actively working to remedy past failings under new leadership.
Care quality and clinical issues: Many reviews raise acute concerns about resident care prior to the ownership change: documented examples include patients left in urine for hours, reports of bedsores, alleged medication-handling problems, safety incidents requiring emergency department transfers, and claims that nursing aides were unhelpful or refused duties. Several reviewers specifically note inadequate dementia training among staff and long delays obtaining medical attention or therapist services. Conversely, more recent reviews under new ownership emphasize improved staffing and strong clinical outcomes — for example, reviewers explicitly mention being bedsore-free and seeing a renewed clinical focus. This contrast suggests that while historical care quality was poor in multiple accounts, there are credible reports of clinical performance improving since the leadership change.
Staff, leadership, and communication: Staff behavior and leadership receive mixed but telling commentary. Positive comments single out named leaders (Sheila and Bobbi) as knowledgeable and empathetic, and praise social services and nursing teams as caring and dedicated. Families describe an open administration, a respectful workplace culture, and staff that prioritize resident wellbeing after the ownership transition. Negative reports focus on unprofessional, rude, or unresponsive staff and disconnected management prior to the change, poor communication with families (including 'forced status calls'), and blocked or delayed transfers. The reviews therefore suggest a bifurcated timeline: historically poor management responsiveness and communication, with a shift toward more open, responsive leadership recently.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety concerns: Multiple reviewers cite physical plant and housekeeping problems: peeling panels in resident rooms, filthy common areas, evidence of neglected maintenance, and claims that housekeeping services were cut due to budget constraints. Some reviewers reported theft (phones stolen) and infrastructure issues such as missing phone jacks. There are also infection-control and hygiene worries — including an alleged scabies risk and concerns about undisclosed agency staff — which heighten perceived safety risks. At the same time, others praise visible investments in common areas (a nice lobby, lake-side patio) and note facility upgrades since the ownership change. The juxtaposition suggests that communal spaces may have received cosmetic investments at times, while resident rooms and essential maintenance were previously neglected; newer reviews indicate ongoing upgrades.
Dining, therapy, and activities: Dining is a frequent pain point in negative reviews: accounts describe terrible, inedible meals served cold or late and criticize the kitchen staff. Yet there are isolated positive incidents noted (made-to-order omelets, biscuits and gravy, brunches served to first responders), indicating the dining experience can be very good on occasion or for special events. Rehabilitation and therapy services are criticized in several reviews as insufficient, and some families say therapy availability or effectiveness was a reason for dissatisfaction. Conversely, newer reviews highlight improved therapy and stronger clinical outcomes, although details are less specific than the negative anecdotes.
Patterns, trustworthiness, and reviewer guidance: A consistent pattern is the temporal split: many highly negative, specific safety-related complaints appear to reflect the facility’s condition before July 2024, while multiple recent reviews after the ownership change report substantial improvement in staffing, leadership engagement, cleanliness, and care outcomes. Reviews also reveal extreme variability in experiences — some families advise unequivocally to avoid the facility, while others now recommend it. Because of the severity of historical complaints (neglect, bedsores, emergency transfers, alleged medication and hygiene issues), prospective families should treat both the negative and positive reports seriously.
Conclusion and suggested due diligence: Overall, Overland Park Post Acute shows evidence of major problems in the past but also credible, consistent signals of improvement under new ownership and leadership since July 2024. If you are evaluating this facility, prioritize in-person verification focused on current staffing ratios, dementia training, infection-control practices, recent inspection reports, housekeeping routines, diet and kitchen oversight, and examples of clinical outcome data (falls, pressure injuries, rehospitalizations). Ask for references from recent families, request to see resident rooms (not just common areas or marketing photos), and confirm policies around transfers and family communication. The reviews warrant caution but also suggest that meaningful change may be underway; careful, up-to-date verification is essential before making placement decisions.
