Overall impression: The reviews for Parkview Care Center are highly mixed and strikingly polarized. A consistent positive thread praises the front-line staff — STNAs, nurses, caregivers, physical therapists, kitchen and laundry staff — who many reviewers describe as caring, attentive, friendly, and the true backbone of the facility. Several accounts emphasize excellent short-term therapy outcomes (one resident ready to go home in about four weeks), a small, home-like environment, and staff who treat residents like family. At the same time, multiple reviewers report severe and specific negative experiences, including allegations of neglect, medical mismanagement, poor food quality, and administrative failures. This creates a contrast between strong praise for individual caregivers and serious systemic concerns about management, facility conditions, and resident safety.
Care quality and clinical issues: There are two recurrent and opposing narratives about care. On the positive side, reviewers cite professional staff, successful therapy outcomes, attentive aides, and great physical therapy teams. On the negative side, there are multiple serious allegations: dehydration, extreme weight loss, undernourishment/starvation, bedsores, kidney failure, inadequate foot care resulting in harm, and transfers to hospital. There are also reports of long medication delays (an explicit report of a 5-hour nurse delay), nurse slow response times, and at least one documented complaint and police report. These accounts suggest inconsistent clinical oversight and variability in the quality of medical care. The presence of both successful therapy stories and severe neglect claims indicates uneven performance that may depend on specific staff on duty, case complexity, or timing.
Staff, culture, and social environment: Praise for staff is one of the strongest themes. Many reviews single out STNAs, nurses, the ADON, physical therapy, and support staff for being friendly, kind, and going above and beyond. Residents are described as sweet and the atmosphere welcoming and peaceful by several reviewers. Conversely, there are also reports of staff yelling at residents, mistreatment, and slow or inattentive behavior. COVID-19 visitor restrictions and limited activities during the pandemic are noted as contributing to isolation and reduced engagement for residents. Overall, the cultural picture is mixed: when staff are engaged and consistent, the environment appears warm and homelike; when staffing or leadership falter, residents suffer from neglect and poor experience.
Facilities and safety: Multiple reviewers appreciate the small size and homelike feel, as well as the convenient location near amenities. However, there are numerous facility-related concerns: very small shared rooms, lack of furniture, no private areas, non-working or absent in-room phones, and ongoing maintenance projects such as a roof replacement. Serious safety and cleanliness complaints appear in the reviews, including urine smell in rooms, urine present in a resident’s room, drug exchange reported outside the fence, and an incident that prompted a police report. These items indicate potential lapses in monitoring, housekeeping consistency, facility security, and environmental maintenance.
Dining and nutrition: Reviews about food vary widely. Some reviewers praise freshly made meals and staff who tailor food to preferences. Others describe meals as inferior to home-cooked food, degrading, and even linked to undernourishment or starvation allegations. Given the concurrent reports of extreme weight loss and dehydration, nutrition emerges as a critical area of concern and an important item to verify in person.
Management, administration, billing, and transparency: Management is a prominent area of complaint. Several reviewers label management as horrible, cite high charges or billing issues, and note that complaints were filed and are awaiting resolution. At the same time, some reviews commend an outgoing and helpful administrator and ADON. There is also skepticism raised by some reviewers about the authenticity of five-star reviews, suspecting they may come from current or past employees. This mix suggests issues with transparency, responsiveness to grievances, and possibly inconsistent administrative practices.
Patterns and recommendations: The reviews suggest a facility with strong hands-on caregivers and therapy staff but with problematic administrative oversight, inconsistent clinical safeguards, and several serious safety and nutrition-related allegations. The degree of variability across reviews makes it essential for prospective families to perform careful due diligence. Recommended steps include: touring the facility multiple times (at different times of day and on different days), meeting direct-care staff and the therapy team, inspecting room sizes and privacy, asking about current infection-control and visitation policies, reviewing recent state inspection reports and complaint resolutions, asking for documentation of incident reports and how complaints are handled, verifying medication administration and staffing ratios, inquiring about dining menus and weight-monitoring policies, and confirming billing practices. Also request references from recent discharges (especially short-term therapy successes) and ask how management addresses reported incidents.
Bottom line: Parkview Care Center receives both robust praise for its caregivers and disturbing allegations about neglect, safety, and management. The most reliable takeaway is that experiences appear to vary widely: some residents and families report excellent, compassionate care and successful rehab outcomes, while others report severe quality and safety failures. Thorough, targeted on-site evaluation and verification of records and oversight practices are essential before making a placement decision.
