Overall sentiment about Palo Duro Nursing Home is mixed and polarized, with clusters of strongly positive reviews praising compassionate care, friendly staff, and a home-like environment, alongside serious negative reviews alleging neglect, poor clinical care, and management problems. Several reviewers emphasize exceptional, dedicated staff who go above and beyond — some even name individual caregivers (Donna and Gina) — and report that families were kept informed, found peace of mind, and experienced high-quality, loving care. Other reviewers describe an opposite experience: insensitive nursing staff, neglectful behavior, and specific clinical incidents that raise safety concerns.
Care quality is a central theme and appears inconsistent across reviewers. Positive comments highlight CNAs and nurses who provide attentive, loving care and create a ‘‘home away from home’’ for residents. Reviewers report meaningful activities, church services, fellowship, and social events that contribute to residents’ quality of life. At the same time, multiple negative accounts allege serious lapses in clinical care: new skin breakdowns (pressure-related wounds), instances where residents were found soaking wet with briefs and clothing improperly positioned, and at least one report linking substandard care to a death in the family. These clinical and hygiene-related complaints are among the most severe concerns and suggest that care standards may vary significantly depending on staff on duty or specific units.
Staff and workplace culture emerge as a dividing line in reviews. Many reviewers praise individual staff members and describe maintenance and support personnel as helpful and kind. Positive narratives emphasize staff who navigate regulations to obtain the best care and who keep family members informed. Conversely, several reviews describe a negative work culture, with staff characterized as uncaring, self-centered, or present only for a paycheck. Management is likewise the subject of conflicting views: some reviewers note a positive administrative change (cited as occurring in March 2022) and credit that change with improvements, while others criticize management as dishonest or ‘‘crooked’’ and accuse leadership of failing to address neglect or of misleading families. This split suggests recent administrative changes may have improved aspects of the community for some residents and families but that prior problems — and possibly some ongoing issues — continue to affect perceptions.
Facilities, dining, and activities receive predominantly favorable mentions. Meals are described as good, home-style cooking; maintenance staff are repeatedly called helpful; and social programming — parties, games, and church services — is cited as a strength that fosters community and fellowship. Several reviewers explicitly say they or their loved ones feel pride in the nursing home and appreciate public-facing engagement such as encouraging posts. These strengths indicate a potentially warm social environment and functional non-clinical operations.
Communication and trust are mixed themes. Positive reviewers report being kept informed and feeling reassured by staff updates. Negative reviewers, however, report feeling lied to, betrayed, or misled by the facility and its management. These trust issues are amplified in accounts involving clinical neglect or serious outcomes; when families perceive dishonesty around care incidents, their overall impression of the facility deteriorates sharply.
Patterns and implications: the reviews reflect a facility that may deliver excellent, compassionate care under certain staff and administrative circumstances but that has at least some instances or periods of concerning practice and culture. The March 2022 administration change is repeatedly mentioned as a turning point by some reviewers, implying improvement since then, yet several reviewers recount problems that may predate that change or indicate ongoing lapses. The most serious red flags are the reported clinical failures (skin breakdown, hygiene lapses) and allegations of dishonesty and neglect — items that warrant attention and verification by prospective families through direct questions, inspection of clinical records/incident reports, and in-person visits.
In summary, prospective residents and families should weigh two clear narratives: one of compassionate, engaged caregivers, strong community life, and improved administration; and another of neglectful care, poor staff culture, and troubling clinical incidents. To form a well-rounded judgment, visitors should ask specific, documented questions about skin care protocols, staff turnover and training, incident reporting and resolution, recent changes under current administration, routine hygiene practices, and references from current families. The mixed reviews indicate that experiences at Palo Duro Nursing Home can vary considerably, and due diligence is advisable before placement.
