The reviews present a highly polarized set of impressions about Grandview Manor Care Center, with a mix of strongly positive statements from some family members and very serious negative allegations from others. On the positive side, several reviewers describe staff as helpful, kind, attentive and loving; they note that staff answered questions and provided personal attention. Those reviewers also say the facility appears clean and sanitary, that activities such as a library and games are available, and that some families would highly recommend the facility. Small room size is mentioned as a factual characteristic and appears to be acceptable or even preferred by some reviewers.
On the negative side, multiple reviews raise grave concerns about resident safety and quality of care. The negative themes include allegations of neglect and physical or emotional abuse, reports that staff were fired for abusive behavior, and claims of poor staff management. Reviewers allege systemic problems such as hiring individuals with criminal records without adequate background checks, reports of alleged identity theft connected to resident credit and package theft, and evictions of residents. These complaints suggest serious lapses in administrative oversight, resident protection, and trustworthiness of handling personal property.
Clinical staffing and acuity placement are recurring concerns. Some reviewers explicitly state there are no nurses on staff and that only medication technicians (med techs) are available, which reviewers present as inadequate for higher-acuity residents. Related complaints include that doors were left open or unsecured and that high-acuity residents are being housed in the facility despite what reviewers describe as an assisted living representation that may not match actual services. These points raise safety and regulatory questions about appropriate licensure, staffing levels, and whether residents’ care needs are being properly matched to the level of care the facility is equipped to provide.
Facilities and activities present a mixed picture. While some reviewers praised cleanliness and availability of activities (library, games), others describe the facility overall as "horrible" and say families are not cared for. The contrast suggests either significant variability in staff performance and resident experiences over time or different expectations among family members. The presence of activities and communal resources is a positive, but those amenities do not, according to negative reviewers, offset alleged lapses in basic safety, staffing, and management.
Management and policy issues are central to many complaints. Reviews allege poor management practices, including inadequate hiring and screening, problematic disciplinary actions (firing staff for abuse but also claims of ongoing problematic hires), resident evictions, and alleged mishandling of resident property and identity. These patterns, if accurate, indicate institutional-level problems rather than isolated incidents and would warrant closer scrutiny by regulators, ombudsmen, and prospective families.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a deep divide: some families report compassion, cleanliness, and satisfactory services, while others report serious safety, ethical, and regulatory concerns including alleged abuse, theft, and misrepresentation of services. The frequency and severity of the negative allegations—particularly those involving abuse, identity theft, lack of background checks, improper placement of high-acuity residents, and absence of nursing staff—are notable and should be investigated further by any party considering placement. Prospective residents and families should seek up-to-date licensure and inspection records, ask for specifics about clinical staffing and background check policies, tour the facility multiple times, speak with current residents and families, and contact the local long-term care ombudsman or state survey agency for additional information before making decisions.
