Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed, with a strong polarization between families who experienced excellent rehabilitative care, compassionate staff, and a clean, secure environment, and families who report serious lapses in basic care, safety, and management responsiveness. Several reviewers emphasize the facility's strengths as a post‑acute/rehab provider: 24/7 medical care, acceptance of Medicaid, a robust therapy department, and many examples of residents making significant functional gains and successfully returning home. Praise is often specific — individual therapists and staff members (one named: Donna Bailey) are described as going above and beyond, recreational staff are called outstanding, and activity programming (sewing, singing, arts & crafts, movies, popcorn nights, cards, Bingo) is highlighted as engaging and well‑run.
Facility amenities and environment also receive positive notes: a nice entrance, secure locked doors with passcodes, outdoor access suitable for family dining, clean rooms and bathrooms in many accounts, and communal spaces such as activity rooms, dining rooms, and living rooms. Multiple reviewers noted the facility felt like home and that staff treated residents with respect and warmth. Some families singled out the food and dining experience as very good, and several reviews praised the facility as among the best in the county before an ownership or operational change.
However, an equally strong theme is serious concern about neglectful care and inconsistent staffing. Numerous reports describe ignored call lights, failure to assist with toileting, residents left without water or food, missed medications (including pain meds), and untreated wounds or bedsores. A few accounts allege extreme outcomes — such as a resident left unattended for long hours resulting in a diabetic coma — which indicate possible critical failures in monitoring and response protocols. There are also alarming allegations that residents were possibly sedated or drugged at night and that hospice CNAs ignored calls. These reports point to potential systemic issues, especially during certain shifts or when the facility is understaffed.
Management, communication, and professionalism appear to be additional areas of concern. Several families report slow nurse responses, poor or inconsistent communication with families, administration that is difficult to work with, and unresolved complaints. Billing problems and advance billing without clear explanation are mentioned more than once, and at least one reviewer alleges financial motives behind care decisions. Staff behavior issues are also recurrent: some reviewers describe CNAs or nurses as rude, on their phones, or not paying attention; others note policy violations such as inappropriate staff‑patient relationships and staff fraternizing during breaks. There are also complaints about cleanliness and odors in some parts of the building, suggesting variability in housekeeping standards.
A notable pattern is variability over time and between residents: several reviews say care and food were excellent previously but worsened after the facility was 'sold' or during certain periods. This inconsistency suggests that experiences may depend heavily on specific shifts, staff on duty, or recent administrative changes. The polar opposite extremes in reports — from 'exceptional, life‑changing rehab' to 'do not send your family here' with allegations of neglect — underscore that prospective residents and families should perform up‑to‑date, in‑person assessments and ask targeted questions about staffing ratios, incident response protocols, wound care procedures, medication administration policies, and billing practices.
In summary, Grandview Post Acute appears to offer strong rehabilitative services, well‑run activities, and compassionate staff in many cases, producing meaningful recoveries and positive experiences. Simultaneously, there are multiple and sometimes severe reports of neglect, medication and wound‑care lapses, understaffing, poor communication, and management issues. These conflicting themes point to uneven quality and reliability: the facility can provide excellent care but also shows evidence of critical failures for some residents. Families should weigh the documented successes against the reported safety and care concerns, verify current staffing and quality metrics, and monitor care closely if choosing this facility.
