Overall sentiment across the collected review summaries is highly mixed: many reviewers report strong, compassionate care and a clean, attractive facility staffed by hardworking caregivers, while a substantial number of reports describe serious problems including neglect, poor communication, safety incidents, and problematic staff behavior. The facility appears to produce markedly different experiences depending on which staff members or shifts families encounter. This creates a polarized picture where some families feel grateful and confident in the care their loved ones receive, and others feel the facility is unsafe or uncaring.
Care quality: Multiple reviewers praised the day-to-day care—describing outstanding, compassionate attention, nurses and aides who listened to residents' needs, and particular staff members who went above and beyond. Positive long-term experiences (including a two-year stay), weight maintenance and good rehab outcomes are cited. In contrast, there are serious allegations of neglect from other reviewers: feeding neglect leading to weight loss and hospitalization, patients left in soiled clothing or not repositioned (leading to skin breakdown and bedsores), and falls requiring extensive medical attention. Several reviewers explicitly stated they removed their loved ones due to declining care. These opposing reports suggest inconsistent clinical practice and significant variability in quality of care between staff/units or shifts.
Staff and culture: Reviews repeatedly reference dedicated, kind, and hardworking caregivers, with names like Victoria Alamos, Bryan, and Rosy singled out for knowledgeable, compassionate assistance. Many families appreciated nursing, therapy, and activities staff. Conversely, repeated complaints point to rude or disrespectful behavior—ranging from eye-rolling during orientation to outright abusive language and alleged racist or discriminatory conduct. Understaffing is a recurring theme and is connected in reviews to missed care tasks, delays in assistance, and morale problems. There are also troubling personnel-related allegations including wrongful dismissal, exploitation of an employee to train others, and concerns about disorganized or unlicensed CNAs. This mixture indicates a workforce that includes both highly commendable caregivers and problematic staff or management behaviors.
Facility, cleanliness, and environment: A majority of reviewers describe the building as clean, well-kept, and nearly new, noting clean rooms, restrooms, and a pleasant appearance. Several reviewers specifically called the facility "beautiful" with good hospitality and a family-like community. However, others reported odors, messy conditions, and a breakfast tray left in front of a resident, as well as clothes going missing. Noise issues (a loud doorbell and noisy halls) and at least one account describing the surrounding area as undesirable were also noted. These mixed observations imply that while the physical plant may be modern and well-maintained in many areas, cleanliness and environmental consistency may vary depending on staffing, shift, or unit.
Safety, security, and incidents: Safety-related concerns are among the most serious themes. Reports of falls, bedsores, feeding neglect, and alleged mishandling of medications point to potential lapses in clinical oversight and safety protocols. One reviewer credited staff for exceptional response during a power outage, demonstrating capability in crisis response, but other reports described unauthorized access by outsiders (attributed to no uniform policy), and wrongful accusations or dismissals. The cluster of safety and security complaints—especially when combined with allegations of poor medication administration and inadequate supervision that led to falls or injury—warrants careful consideration by prospective residents and families.
Management, communication, and administration: Opinions about leadership are polarized. Some reviewers praised the administration and specific leaders for strong oversight and good family communication. Others described the director of nursing and administration as "awful," citing failures to inform families about injuries or hospitalizations and billing lapses. Several complaints highlight poor or inconsistent communication—families learning late about incidents or feeling shut out of decisions. This variability suggests strengths in some managerial relationships but systemic gaps in transparency and consistent family engagement.
Activities, dining, and therapy: Comments on programming and therapy are mixed but include positive notes—an informative therapy director, good rehab outcomes, private rooms for rehab patients, and generally "really good food." Conversely, several reviewers said there were no activities or insufficient resident engagement. This again points to inconsistent implementation of nonclinical services across the facility or by shift.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is variability—excellent experiences cluster around certain staff and shifts, while negative experiences appear connected to understaffing, poor communication, or specific personnel issues. Praise for named employees and for cleanliness/modern facilities is frequent, but the severity of negative reports (neglect, bedsores, falls, medication concerns, discriminatory behavior, theft) is significant and cannot be overlooked.
If you are evaluating Highland Park Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, consider these practical steps based on review themes: visit in person multiple times (including evenings/weekends), ask about staffing ratios and shift coverage, inquire specifically about policies for medication administration, fall prevention, pressure ulcer prevention/repositioning schedules, and emergency procedures. Request details on security policies (entrance control and staff identification), laundry/property safeguards, activity schedules, and how families are notified about incidents or hospitalizations. Meet the director of nursing and therapy director, ask for references from families of current residents, and verify staff training and licensing where possible. Given the polarized experiences, these targeted inquiries and observations during an in-person tour will be important to determine whether the facility’s strengths align with your expectations and whether the concerns raised in some reviews have been addressed.
