Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized: many reviewers praise the facility’s rehabilitation services and some staff members, while a substantial and recurring set of complaints describe serious quality, safety, staffing, cleanliness and management problems. The most consistent praise centers on the therapy teams (physical and occupational therapy), where multiple therapists are named and lauded for individualized plans, progress toward goals, and good communication. Guest services, certain social workers/case managers, and specific nurses or aides also receive repeated recognition; reviewers often single out particular people (for example Wendy, Michael Parker, Tyrone, Megan Keel and many therapists) as reasons they had a positive experience. Multiple reviewers describe dramatic functional improvements and successful discharges driven largely by the therapy teams, and some floors—especially the 5th floor and penthouse—are repeatedly described as bright, clean and well-run, with private rooms and pleasant accommodations.
However, the negative reports are frequent, detailed and severe. A dominant theme is inconsistent staffing and care quality: understaffing, broken workflows and frequent shift-to-shift variability lead to long call-bell response times, missed or late medications, delayed wound care, and patients being left in soiled bedding or urine. Across many reviews there are concrete safety incidents—falls, delayed ambulance response, missed pain treatment, inadequate supervision of high-risk patients—that indicate systemic lapses rather than isolated events. Medication administration failures are described repeatedly (wrong dosage, not given on time, or medications not prepared at discharge), which combined with inadequate physician coverage on weekends fuels concerns about clinical oversight. Many reviewers link these clinical harms to staffing shortages or inattentive staff.
Cleanliness, pest control and basic maintenance are another major area of concern. Numerous reviews report mice, roaches and bed bugs in rooms or hallways, ceiling leaks, dirty microwaves and floors, and unpleasant odors of urine or feces. Some reviewers report supplies shortages (blankets, bed pads), broken equipment (beds, wheelchairs, call buttons), and general facility deterioration in certain units. These environmental problems are often cited alongside allegations of infection control lapses and poor housekeeping. That said, reviewers consistently note that cleanliness and environment vary widely by floor; the 5th floor/penthouse are almost uniformly described as better maintained and more home-like.
Dining and nutrition receive mixed-to-negative comments. Many reviewers say the food is poor: repetitive menus, small portions, cold meals, and failures to honor dietary restrictions. A handful of staff (a sous-chef, a new dietician) are praised for improvements, but inconsistent delivery, cold or over-nuked meals, and trays left without assistance are common complaints. Several reviewers also connect poor nutrition to clinical decline (dehydration, weight loss).
Management, communication and administrative responsiveness show clear patterns of variability and concern. While admissions and guest services often earn praise for being welcoming and helpful, several accounts criticize front-desk unresponsiveness, rude or defensive managers, and case managers/social workers who are unhelpful or misleading. Discharge planning is a frequent pain point: reviewers report rushed or unsafe discharges, missing equipment or medications at home, belongings left behind, and poor follow-through. Multiple reviewers felt decisions were driven by reimbursement rules (Medicare) or facility convenience rather than patient need.
Safety, privacy and integrity concerns appear in multiple reviews: theft of money and clothing, public admonishment or HIPAA-related issues, and reports of rough or humiliating treatment. There are also allegations of clinical mismanagement (unnecessary X-rays or shots, improper wound care), which, combined with poor documentation and communication between therapy and nursing, create a narrative of fragmented care. COVID-era restrictions and practices are mentioned as complicating family access and communication, sometimes amplifying families’ distress.
Patterns and takeaways: there is a strong and repeated pattern of excellent rehabilitation services and a subset of highly committed staff who can deliver very good outcomes; however, these strengths coexist with systemic problems in nursing, environmental services, management and safety. Positive experiences almost always highlight therapy teams, guest services, and specific floor teams; negative experiences more often reference understaffing, medication and clinical safety issues, pests, and poor discharge/administrative handling. The variability appears to be both floor-specific (5th floor often better) and shift-specific (day vs. night differences, weekends problematic). For prospective residents or families, these reviews suggest it is important to: ask detailed questions about current staffing levels, nurse-to-patient ratios, pest control and recent inspection results; clarify the discharge plan (equipment/meds home-ready); verify how dietary restrictions and medication administration are enforced; and, if possible, request placement on or a tour of preferred floors/units.
In summary: Graduate Post Acute/ProMedica Center City elicits sharply mixed reviews. If rehabilitation (PT/OT) is the primary need, many reviewers report excellent therapy and measurable gains. If consistent, attentive nursing, reliable medication administration, clean/pest-free environments, and safe discharge planning are top priorities, the facility shows significant and recurring weaknesses that should be investigated before placement. The user should weigh the documented therapy strengths and named outstanding staff against the repeated reports of safety, staffing, and environmental failures when making decisions or advising family members.
