Overall impression: The reviews for Parsons Hill Rehabilitation & Health Care Center are sharply polarized. A substantial number of reviewers praise individual staff members, therapists, and some administrators for providing compassionate, effective rehabilitation and supportive care that improved mobility and recovery. At the same time, many reviews describe serious and recurrent systemic problems—particularly understaffing, unsafe practices, sanitation and pest issues, medication errors, and poor communication with families—that significantly undermine resident safety and satisfaction. These conflicting themes create a picture of a facility with pockets of excellent, dedicated personnel and therapy outcomes, coexisting with recurring facility-wide failures that have real health and safety consequences for residents.
Care quality and clinical risks: Multiple reviewers reported missed or delayed medications (including heart antibiotics, prednisone and psychiatric medications), refusal or failure to administer breathing treatments and oxygen, and transfers to hospital for respiratory illness. There are allegations of neglect that extend to failures to bathe residents for days, inadequate wound/leg monitoring (missed swelling), and delayed responses to urgent needs. Several serious safety incidents were described: falls resulting in head injuries or fractures, missing bed rails, and an unsafe bed implicated in falls. Some reviewers reported abusive behavior—verbal and physical—from staff and reported theft and loss of personal belongings. Conversely, many families credit specific nurses, CNAs and therapists with life-changing progress and attentive care. This indicates wide variability in clinical performance and supervision.
Staffing, communication, and social services: A dominant theme is understaffing and inconsistent staff quality. Day shifts, some therapists, and certain named staff (examples given in reviews) are frequently praised for being kind, responsive and skilled; night shifts or specific nurses are often described as unresponsive, rude or neglectful. Communication failures are common: phone hang-ups, inability to reach proxies, insufficient discharge planning, and poor coordination with outside providers. Social services drew mixed comments—some reviewers singled out particular social workers (both positively and negatively) and others called social services dishonest or unhelpful. Several reviewers urged involvement of external advocates or the ombudsman and mentioned intentions to pursue legal action.
Facilities, sanitation and pest control: Many reviews raise significant concerns about the physical plant and cleanliness. Reports include rodent infestations (mice in rooms and even in beds), rat droppings, strong urine/feces odors, unsanitary bathrooms and kitchen-adjacent areas, and broken ceiling lights or other maintenance deficits. Some reviewers noted a clean, spotless room and good laundry—again underscoring inconsistency across units or time periods. The presence of a barbershop directly adjacent to food-prep or bathroom areas and reports of hair near food prep were cited as contamination risks. Repeated mentions of mice and sanitation problems indicate an unresolved, facility-level infection-control concern that must be addressed promptly.
Safety culture, policies and troubling behaviors: Several reviews describe lax supervision of visitors (smoking all day outside, alcohol available to visitors) and possible illicit drug presence, raising safety concerns. Allegations of privacy violations, being held against one’s will, denial of medical choices, and coercion to stay were reported. Some families reported being locked in the building as visitors, and others recounted rude, unprofessional conduct (staff cursing, hung-up phone calls, doctors perceived as disengaged). These reports suggest both policy and culture gaps around resident dignity, security and professional conduct.
Rehabilitation, activities and dining: Rehabilitation services (PT/OT) receive frequent praise for improving mobility and enabling discharge home; many patients attribute meaningful recovery to therapy staff. Activities programming—arts and crafts, bingo, movies and live singing—was noted as enriching for residents. Dining experiences were mixed: some reviewers celebrated thoughtful breakfasts and good food, while others described poor food quality. Laundry and linen services were praised in several reviews, but sanitation problems around kitchens and dining spaces remain an overarching concern for some families.
Leadership and notable staff: Several reviewers named specific staff and leaders positively (examples include Krystal G. [social work in one review], Isabela H. [ADON], Karen [DON], Norma [Administrator], Matt and Rich [maintenance], Cindy [activities], Mrs. Irene, Chrizzie, Grace, Adriana, Crissy, Andy, Dave, Katiana). At the same time, some reviews accuse leadership of dishonesty, lack of oversight and inadequate response to complaints. Mixed experiences with the same or similarly named staff (for example, “Krystal” is praised in some reviews and criticized in others) highlight inconsistency in roles, assignments or performance over time.
Specialized care and access issues: Reviewers with residents receiving substance-use treatment reported stigma and coordination problems—access limited to a single methadone clinic, poor recognition of external providers, and dosing controlled by a sole entity. Language access problems were also raised (lack of interpreters for Spanish speakers), along with occasional concerns about hospice service quality.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant patterns are variability in care quality, chronic staffing shortfalls, recurrent sanitation/pest problems, medication and safety failures, and poor family communication. Where Parsons Hill appears to do well it is because of particular staff members and therapy teams who go above and beyond; where it fails, it is due to systemic issues that repeatedly reappear in multiple reviews. Immediate priorities based on these reports would be: (1) urgent pest eradication and a visible sanitation plan; (2) review of medication administration and respiratory-care protocols with root-cause analysis of reported missed treatments; (3) staffing audits to address night-shift responsiveness and call-light response times; (4) safety audits for bed rails, fall-prevention equipment and security/visitor policies; (5) improved family communication protocols and clearer social-work engagement; and (6) transparent leadership responses including involvement of external oversight (ombudsman) where appropriate.
Bottom line: Prospective residents and families will find a mixed picture. Parsons Hill has clear strengths in rehabilitation therapy, some excellent individual caregivers, engaging activities and, for some, good dining and housekeeping. However, persistent and serious issues reported by many reviewers—especially around staffing, medication safety, pest infestation, hygiene and inconsistent professional conduct—are major red flags that require verification and remediation before trusting the facility with vulnerable residents. Families considering Parsons Hill should ask specific, documented questions about pest control, medication-safety improvements, nurse staffing ratios and recent incident reports; they should also seek references for the specific unit and time period where their loved one would be placed, and consider visiting in person to evaluate cleanliness and staff responsiveness firsthand.
