The reviews for Park Meadows Post Acute present highly polarized experiences but, when synthesized, reveal clear, recurring patterns: a recognized strength in rehabilitation services and pockets of excellent frontline caregiving contrasted with systemic issues in nursing care, management, communication, cleanliness, and safety. Many reviewers praise the therapy teams (physical, occupational, speech) as skilled, professional, and effective—often credited with measurable patient improvement. Several CNAs and specific nurses receive repeated commendation for going above and beyond, and some families report a welcoming, modern facility with engaging activities, nutritious meal options, and good admissions support that provided peace of mind.
Conversely, a large and consistent body of reviews documents serious deficits in basic nursing care and safety. Multiple accounts describe residents left unattended for hours, delayed responses to call lights, infrequent diaper changes, and residents left in urine or feces. Repeated mentions of residents not being bathed for days, missed hygiene care, and staff snapping at family members point to both neglect and poor bedside manner. Several reviews recount safety incidents including falls, a dropped patient, missed dialysis or appointments, delayed escalation to the hospital, and cases where medication handling allegedly contributed to severe adverse outcomes. These are among the most serious themes and are described by multiple reviewers as causing hospital readmissions, health declines, or worse.
Staffing levels and management practices are central to many complaints. Numerous reviewers explicitly attribute poor care to being short-staffed and overworked; others describe unresponsive administration, difficulty reaching leadership, and a sense that complaints are not adequately addressed. There are frequent statements about a decline in quality after a change in ownership or staffing "takeover," with some reviewers saying care was much better before. Several reviews report bullying or intimidation of frontline workers and poor morale, which reviewers believe contributes to inconsistent resident care. Multiple accounts also criticize the front desk for rudeness or not answering phones, and note poor coordination of transportation and medical appointments.
Medication safety and clinical oversight emerge as recurring and serious concerns. Reviewers mention medication errors, questionable medication orders (including an alleged fentanyl patch applied without consent), and instances where staff could not or did not respond to significant clinical deterioration. Several reviews emphasize that while rehab therapists performed well, nursing oversight — medication administration, monitoring, and timely communication about worsening conditions — was unreliable. This discrepancy leads many families to transfer their loved ones elsewhere after perceived harm or decline.
Facility cleanliness, dining, and environment elicit mixed feedback. Some families describe the facility as clean, modern, and comfortable with engaging activities and good food; others report unsanitary conditions such as overflowing toilets, lingering urine odors in hallways, unclean rooms, and poor food quality (cold meals, small portions, or microwave-style entrees in styrofoam). This inconsistency suggests variability between units, shifts, or periods of staffing adequacy versus understaffing. Activities and social programming receive praise from some reviewers—music therapy, crafts, and wellness programs are noted—but other reviewers say activities were limited or canceled (e.g., pandemic closures) and that residents had little engagement.
Family communication and transparency are additional fault lines. Some families report excellent updates and a strong sense of partnership with staff and admissions; others report poor or nonexistent communication — no follow-up after hospital transfers, unanswered calls, and administrators who are difficult to reach. Several reviewers express distrust of online ratings and raise concerns about fake or staff-written positive reviews, advising prospective families to visit in person. The presence of named staff members receiving praise (e.g., CNAs, admissions directors, therapists) alongside named complaints about administrators or specific nurses highlights how individual staff behavior can dramatically shape a family's experience.
Taken together, the reviews indicate that Park Meadows Post Acute can deliver excellent rehabilitation and has committed, caring employees who provide outstanding hands-on caregiving and therapy in many cases. However, persistent and repeated complaints about basic nursing care, safety lapses, medication handling, poor hygiene, short-staffing, and management responsiveness create significant risk signals. The facility appears to have considerable variability in quality: some shifts, units, or staff teams provide high-quality, compassionate care, while other times or places within the facility exhibit neglectful practices. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong rehabilitation reputation and positive staff reports against the frequency and seriousness of the negative accounts. Visiting the unit(s) in person, asking specific questions about staffing ratios, medication safety protocols, incident reporting, and speaking directly with therapy and nursing leadership before making decisions is strongly advised. If possible, seek references from recent families and verify state inspection reports to corroborate the patterns described in these reviews.
