The reviews for Grace Living Center Stillwater present a highly mixed and polarized picture, with some reviewers reporting good clinical outcomes and compassionate care while many others describe serious failures in basic caregiving, cleanliness, and management. Positive comments emphasize competent nursing in certain cases, effective occupational/physical therapy (including successful rehab after hip surgery), good diabetes/insulin management and education, and a willingness to accommodate individualized meal requests. Several reviewers also note beneficial social programming—weekly bingo, holiday and Super Bowl parties, visits by art students, and church services—and mention recent remodeling and a pleasant dining area in parts of the facility.
However, a substantial portion of the reviews contain severe and repeated complaints that point to systemic problems. The most frequent and troubling theme is understaffing, which reviewers link directly to long call-light response times and residents being left in urine or feces, on bedside commodes for extended periods, or in soiled bedding. Multiple reports describe delays or failures in wound care (including untreated bedsores or open wounds), residents left unfed or with food placed out of reach, and basic hygiene lapses such as lack of tooth brushing and missing footwear. Several reviewers recount instances of residents being ignored or left unattended, and some allege injuries (bruises, black eyes) with inconsistent explanations from staff.
Staff behavior and administrative responsiveness are another major area of division. While some reviewers praise caring nurses and managers who answer questions, many more describe rude, impatient, or unprofessional staff and aides who are inattentive (for example, on their phones). There are multiple allegations that administration is unresponsive or hides information about residents’ conditions, and that the facility prioritizes billing/Medicare or money over patient care. Reports also include claims of unsafe conditions—poor structural maintenance, infestations, and outbreaks of preventable communicable diseases—and assertions of illegal or unsafe staff-to-patient ratios. A number of reviews report extreme outcomes, including death of a resident and statements that the facility’s failures contributed to severe harm.
Facility cleanliness and food receive contradictory mentions: some reviews praise a remodeled facility and pleasant dining atmosphere, while many others report foul odors, dirty linens on the floor, undercooked or cold food, and generally poor food quality. Infection-control and safety measures were questioned in at least one review (no masks on a COVID-designated floor). Visitor restrictions and locked doors after hours are noted as sources of family frustration. Activity programming is a relative bright spot (bingo, parties, student visits, church), but these positives are overshadowed for many reviewers by perceived risks to resident safety and dignity.
Overall sentiment is highly polarized. There are legitimate examples of good clinical care, individualized attention, and successful rehabilitation, but these are contrasted by numerous and consistent reports of neglect, understaffing, poor hygiene, slow emergency response, and administrative shortcomings. The volume and severity of negative reports—particularly those alleging untreated wounds, residents left in soiled conditions, unprofessional behavior, and serious adverse outcomes—suggest patterns that warrant careful scrutiny by prospective residents and families.
If considering this facility, ask specific, concrete questions before placement: current staffing ratios per shift, average call-light response time, wound-care protocols and documentation, infection-control policies (including COVID procedures), how complaints are investigated and escalated, examples of recent quality-improvement actions, and whether the facility can meet any specialized needs (ventilator care, diabetes management, etc.). Request to speak with nursing leadership, observe care during shift changes, and, if possible, seek recent inspection reports or regulatory actions to corroborate the reviews’ claims. The information provided in these reviews indicates that experiences vary widely; therefore, thorough verification and regular family oversight would be particularly important in this case.
