Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed and polarized: many families praise Concordia of Franklin Park for its caring staff, pleasant environment, and active programming, while an approximately equal number report serious concerns about understaffing, management practices, and inconsistent quality of care. Several reviews describe deeply positive, family-like interactions with nurses and aides, good communication during difficult times (including COVID-19), appetizing dining, and a well-kept, attractive campus. Conversely, other reviewers describe hygiene and safety lapses, aggressive sales tactics, and a sense that the facility prioritizes revenue over individualized care.
Care quality and safety: Reviews repeatedly reference compassionate nurses and caring aides, but also multiple reports that basic care is compromised by staffing shortages. Specific problems cited include infrequent showers, skipped hygiene tasks, long aide shifts, and delayed responses to falls or emergencies (including at least one described fall with a slow staff response). Evening shifts are singled out in several reviews as particularly under-resourced, creating concerns about resident safety and timeliness of assistance. The net picture is of a facility capable of good hands-on care when staff are available, but vulnerable to lapses when staffing is thin.
Staff and management: Staff behavior is described in contrasting terms. Many reviewers call the staff friendly, compassionate, and responsive — with specific praise for an activities director and nurses who keep families informed. At the same time, high staff turnover, low pay, and reports of aides being overworked are common. Several reviewers explicitly blame poor management or ownership for persistent understaffing and for not addressing family complaints. Aggressive admission pressure and reported misrepresentations (for example about SSI/Medicaid acceptance) create distrust among some families. These management and sales-related issues are among the most frequently cited negatives and appear to drive some families to classify the facility as profit-driven and dishonest.
Facilities and cleanliness: The facility receives substantial positive feedback for its appearance: multiple comments note the well-maintained building, attractive décor, nicely appointed dining hall, pleasant grounds with trees, and the ability to make rooms personal by bringing furniture. Many reviewers emphasize routine cleaning, laundry services, and an overall pleasant environment. However, there are notable exceptions: several reviewers reported odors or horrible smells in parts of the building, at least one reviewer described a dirty room, and memory care was described by some as looking run-down or like a basement. Thus, while the general impression is that common areas and many rooms are clean and attractive, quality appears inconsistent across units or shifts.
Dining and activities: Dining is frequently praised — appetizing meals, a pleasant dining room, and residents being excited to eat are recurring positive points. A few reviews criticize food quality, so experiences vary. Activities receive strong and repeated praise: an engaged activities director, a robust schedule of events, entertainment, and many options for engagement are important strengths. Some reviews, though, note that activities are not always well-tailored to every resident (for example, a comment that activities weren’t a good fit for a particular individual), and loneliness or depression was reported for some residents despite the activity offerings.
Pricing and financial issues: Cost is a common concern. Some families describe the pricing as outrageously high (one mention of around $10,000/month), with others calling it expensive or high for what is provided. There are also reports of financial misrepresentation — pressure to pay upfront and claims that SSI or specific payment arrangements would be accepted when they were not — which generated distrust. A few reviewers called the facility reasonable or well-priced, indicating variation in perceptions possibly tied to the type of contract or level of care. Medicaid process concerns and a general sense of financial burden were recurring themes among negative reviews.
Notable patterns and tensions: The dominant pattern is a split between strong praise for individual staff members and programs versus systemic problems tied to staffing levels and management. Positive experiences often highlight individual caregivers, the activities team, and the facility’s cleanliness/grounds; negative experiences cluster around understaffing, overlooked complaints, and financial/sales practices. Memory care and evening coverage emerge as specific areas of concern. Safety incidents and skipped hygiene due to staffing shortages were among the most serious complaints. Several reviews recommend against the facility using terms like "not recommended," "dishonest," or "do not trust" — language that underscores how passionately some families felt about negative experiences.
Implications for prospective families: The reviews suggest that Concordia of Franklin Park can offer a pleasant environment, dedicated activity programming, and many compassionate staff members, but also that outcomes are highly dependent on staff availability and management responsiveness. Prospective families should verify current staffing ratios (including evening coverage), inspect memory care areas in person, ask about shower and hygiene schedules, request references from current families, and obtain clear, written details about costs and payment/Medicaid acceptance before admission. Visiting at different times and speaking with both staff and residents can help assess whether the facility’s positive aspects are consistent and whether any of the reported concerns are being actively addressed.
