Overall sentiment across the reviews for Carrie Elligson Gietner Home is sharply mixed and polarized. A substantial number of reviewers praise individual staff members, nurses, therapists, and the administrator for compassionate, attentive care, successful therapy and recovery outcomes, and a family-like atmosphere. These positive reports note spacious private rooms, appealing outdoor areas including gardens and a waterfall/covered smoking area, regular activities and outings, and helpful administrative support with transfers and COVID-19 needs. For those families and residents who had positive experiences, the facility can feel home-like, warm, and professionally run with staff who advocate for and listen to families.
However, an equally strong cluster of reviews describes serious and systemic problems. These reports include direct allegations of neglect (residents left in urine or stool, bedsores, poor personal hygiene), significant cleanliness and odor issues throughout the building, and documented pest problems including bed bugs, rats, and roaches. Multiple reviewers report understaffing severe enough to affect daily care (for example, one aide covering multiple floors), inconsistent meal service or poor-quality food, and environmental failures such as lack of heat, no air conditioning in summer, and generally rundown, dingy facilities. The building itself is described as aging and in need of substantial maintenance despite isolated mentions of attractive private rooms and once-grand exterior features.
Safety and professionalism are recurring concerns. Several reviewers describe incidents involving illicit substances being brought into the building, weapons (knives, tasers) found on premises, theft and exploitation of residents, and allegations of staff verbally abusing or manipulating residents. At the same time, other reviewers emphasize that staff were compassionate and handled behavioral or mental health challenges with care. These conflicting reports suggest inconsistency in staff conduct and possibly wide variability between shifts, units, or specific employees. A few reviews also raise questions about licensing, credentials, or administrative oversight, and some allege management failures (including accusations of administration 'stealing time'). Conversely, there are multiple specific commendations for the administrator and leadership who were reported to listen and resolve problems when alerted.
Dining and programming are similarly inconsistent in reviewers' experiences. Some families praise numerous activities, family-invited events, outings with minimal paperwork, and active gardening/horticultural programs. Others report a lack of activities, depressing environments, and poor or inadequate food service. The facility accepts Medicare/Medicaid and offers therapy services, but access and quality of these services appear to vary by case.
Taken together, the dominant pattern in these reviews is high variability: some residents receive excellent, attentive care in pleasant private rooms with active engagement and responsive leadership; others experience neglect, poor hygiene, pest and cleanliness problems, safety issues, and understaffing. Physical plant problems (old building, no AC/heat in places, antique elevator, overgrowth) are repeatedly noted and likely contribute to the uneven resident experience.
Implications from these patterns are threefold. First, quality appears inconsistent and potentially dependent on staff on duty, unit placement, or how actively problems are escalated and addressed by management. Second, there are credible, serious allegations (neglect, pests, safety risks) that warrant careful inquiry and monitoring by families or regulators. Third, when the administration and core clinical staff are engaged, reviewers report meaningful, positive outcomes, indicating that leadership presence and problem resolution can materially improve resident experience.
If evaluating this facility, prospective residents and families should verify current licensing and inspection records, tour multiple units and rooms at different times of day, ask about staffing ratios per shift, inquire specifically about pest control and recent outbreak history, confirm protocols for medications, contraband and visitor screening, request documentation of how complaints are handled and resolved, and speak directly with the administrator and clinical leads about any specific care needs. The reviews indicate both strong strengths (compassionate staff and good private accommodations in some cases) and significant risks (neglect, pests, safety issues, and inconsistent management), so decisions should be based on up-to-date verification and direct observation across the facility rather than a single tour or isolated interaction.
