Overall sentiment: The reviews of Glisan Care Center are overwhelmingly negative with recurring and serious complaints about resident safety, care quality, cleanliness, food service, and management responsiveness. While a minority of reviewers cite positive experiences with individual staff members or specific departments (notably physical therapy and a named social worker), the dominant themes are neglect, medication and dietary errors, poor housekeeping, and administrative failures. Many reviewers explicitly advise others to avoid the facility or to move residents out immediately, and several mention state investigations and fines as confirmation of systemic problems.
Care quality and safety: A large number of reviews describe medication errors (missed doses, delayed pain meds, missed antibiotics) and periods without an RN on duty. These lapses are associated with significant adverse outcomes including untreated infections, unmanaged pain and sedation issues, constipation leading to hospitalization, pressure sores/wounds with inadequate management, and falls that resulted in head and other injuries. Multiple reviewers report that call buttons were ignored or had long response times, sometimes during urgent incidents; reviewers tie these delays directly to worsening medical conditions and emergency room transfers. Patterns in the feedback indicate not isolated incidents but repeated, systemic failures in clinical oversight and timely care delivery.
Staff behavior and professionalism: Reviews paint a mixed picture of staff. Numerous reviewers describe unprofessional behavior such as staff gossiping about residents, HIPAA/privacy violations, verbal disrespect, and an overall lack of compassion. Night shift performance is singled out as particularly problematic, including language and communication barriers that affect care continuity. Conversely, many reviewers identify individual caregivers, CNAs, nurses, and a social worker (Michelle) as compassionate and hardworking; several reviews stress that these staff members often do their best despite systemic constraints. This contrast suggests variability between individual staff commitment and broader organizational culture.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance: Housekeeping and facility maintenance are frequent complaint areas. Reviews describe dirty rooms, inadequate cleaning (not mopped or swept), moldy fruit, and an overall run‑down building with cluttered common areas and poorly kept grounds. Some reviewers, however, report a clean environment, indicating inconsistency in housekeeping standards across units or shifts. The presence of lost valuables, unsanitary conditions, and reports of food mold and poor laundry/bed conditions amplify concerns about infection risk and resident dignity.
Dining and nutrition: Dining receives substantial criticism. Common complaints include overcooked or undercooked meals, tasteless or overly salted food, under‑portioning, and failure to follow prescribed dietary restrictions (including gluten/Celiac needs). Several reviewers explicitly state that dietary errors created health risks. There are reports of kitchen mismanagement and even alleged food theft. A minority of reviews call the food mediocre rather than dangerous, but the balance of commentary indicates that nutrition and meal service are areas in need of immediate improvement.
Management, leadership, and accountability: Many reviewers point to management and ownership as drivers of the facility's problems, citing new ownership, corporate focus on profit, cost cutting, and administrators who allegedly prioritize paychecks over resident welfare. Complaints are frequently described as ignored or minimized by leadership; several reviewers call for state regulatory action, inspections, or even shutdown. Names are mentioned in reviews (for example, an administrator identified as Ash), and reviewers assert that prior warnings and state investigations support their concerns. There are also allegations of cover‑ups and terminated staff in response to complaints, suggesting adversarial relations between families and management.
Operational issues and systems: Beyond clinical and housekeeping problems, reviewers report transport failures, refusals of rehabilitation services, lost or mishandled personal items, and insufficient activity programming. The environment is described by some as prison‑like or toxic, with chairs and common areas poorly arranged and monitoring equipment left in hallways. These operational flaws compound clinical risks by reducing residents' mobility, social engagement, and dignity.
Patterns, mixed experiences, and recommendations: The reviews show a clear pattern of inconsistent care — pockets of genuinely good, compassionate care (often named individuals or specific departments like PT) exist alongside frequent and serious lapses. This variability suggests systemic issues (staffing, training, supervision, and culture) rather than isolated bad actors. Multiple reviewers urge immediate action: family members to move residents, state inspections and enforcement, and management accountability. Readers should interpret the reviews as signaling elevated risk; the repeated themes of medication errors, ignored call lights, untreated conditions, and administrative inaction are particularly concerning.
Conclusion: Based on the aggregated reviews, Glisan Care Center appears to suffer from widespread and recurring problems affecting resident safety, hygiene, nutrition, and dignity, driven by operational and managerial failures. While some staff members and departments receive praise, the frequency and severity of negative reports — including ER visits, state fines, and alleged neglect — suggest systemic issues requiring regulatory scrutiny and corrective action. Families considering this facility should weigh these documented risks, verify recent inspection results and staffing patterns, and, if residents are currently placed there, monitor care closely and consider alternative placements if problems persist.