Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but centers on a clear pattern: At Home at Parkland is a small, home-like facility that many families praise for personalized attention, compassionate staff, and a calm, country setting, while a subset of reviewers report serious and concerning lapses in care, management, and hygiene.
Care quality: Multiple reviewers emphasize personalized, attentive care, noting that staff make residents feel at home and that the facility accepts and works with residents who have limited abilities. Several accounts describe excellent care, smooth transitions, long resident stays, and families feeling confident that their loved ones are safe and well cared for. The small size of the facility is repeatedly cited as a positive factor that enables individualized attention and familiarity between staff and residents. At the same time, there are alarming reports — particularly tied to the COVID period — of neglect: residents left unattended in bed, rooms found extremely dirty, lack of basic supplies (toilet paper, soap, towels), and hygiene failures including fecal matter under a resident's fingernails. These severe negative incidents contrast sharply with the many positive care reports and are a major red flag for prospective families.
Staff and staffing patterns: Many reviewers praise staff as friendly, compassionate, supportive, and instrumental in making residents feel at home. Regular therapists, doctors, and a visiting hairdresser are cited as strengths, and staff help arrange outings and visits. However, a recurring concern is staff turnover and inconsistency. Several reviewers worry that frequent staff changes lead to uneven care. There are also specific allegations of inattentive staff and, in the worst accounts, neglect. The mixed comments suggest that while some caregivers and teams provide excellent, stable care, staffing instability and individual performance problems have occurred.
Facilities and setting: The facility is described as small and quiet, in a rural/remote country setting, which many families appreciate for its calm atmosphere and privacy. Private rooms and temperature-controlled bathrooms are noted positives. Conversely, some reviewers point out shared bathrooms for certain residents, and the remote location could be a drawback for families seeking closer access. Cleanliness is a double-edged theme: while many feel the place is home-like, there are serious reports of extreme room dirtiness from some reviewers that must be investigated further.
Dining and activities: Several reviews applaud homemade meals, a welcoming dining environment, and frequent meal invitations that foster community. Others express a desire for fresher, more home-cooked food or criticize limited meal options (reports of primarily soup and sandwiches). Engaging activities, arranged outings, and regular visits from therapists and hairdressers are mentioned positively and contribute to a home-like, socially engaging environment.
Management and communication: Reviews here are sharply divided. Some families commend clear communication and a responsive owner (noting the owner is a medical professional in some accounts). Others report poor management, lack of responsiveness to complaints, and troubling behavior by owners/managers, including attacks on reviewers and threats. Such allegations of hostile management responses, if accurate, indicate a problematic culture around feedback and accountability. This variability means prospective families should carefully evaluate management responsiveness and how complaints are handled.
Safety, hygiene, and COVID-era concerns: The most serious pattern among negative reviews involves hygiene and neglect during the COVID period, with specific, disturbing examples of unsanitary conditions and lack of basic supplies. Combined with reports of unresponsiveness from administration in those situations, these accounts significantly elevate risk concerns. Families should ask directly about infection-control policies, staffing levels during crises, supervision, and any corrective actions taken after reported incidents.
Price and suitability: Some reviewers find the pricing reasonable for the personalized care and rural setting; others feel the facility is overpriced, especially when they perceive care or meal quality as lacking. The facility appears well suited to families seeking a small, intimate environment that accepts residents with limited abilities, provided that staffing is stable and management is responsive.
Recommendations and overall takeaway: The reviews indicate At Home at Parkland can offer excellent, compassionate, individualized care in a small, home-like setting with strong social and therapeutic supports. However, there are nontrivial and serious negative reports — including hygiene failures, neglect, management hostility, and staffing instability — that require careful vetting. Prospective families should conduct in-person visits, speak with current residents’ families, review cleanliness and infection-control measures, confirm staffing continuity and turnover rates, ask for references about management responsiveness, inspect dining menus, and verify how the facility handles specific medical restrictions. Given the mix of strong positive experiences and alarming negative incidents, due diligence is essential to determine whether this facility’s strengths align with a particular resident’s needs and to ensure the problems reported have been addressed.
