Overall sentiment across the provided reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: a large number of reviewers report very positive experiences centered on the facility’s appearance, therapy services, admissions process, and many caring staff members, while a significant subset reports serious care and safety concerns, particularly with nursing, staffing levels, medication administration, and personal hygiene.
Facility and environment: The physical environment receives consistent praise. Multiple reviewers describe Greenhill Villas as beautiful, newer/upscale, very clean, and well‑kept, with manicured grounds and an attractive decor. Many families and residents note there are no lingering odors and that the building looks expensive and well maintained. These positive impressions occur repeatedly and appear to be one of the facility’s strongest attributes.
Staff and culture: Reviews indicate a mixed experience with staff. Numerous comments praise friendly, helpful, and professional support staff, administrative personnel, and some nurses who are described as compassionate and thorough. Admissions staff (notably Tera Rozell in multiple mentions) and office personnel are repeatedly commended for making transitions easier, answering questions, and providing responsive communication. Several reviewers describe a family-oriented culture and resident-focused teams that made them feel confident in their placement decisions.
However, conflicting reports about clinical staff are prominent. Several reviewers describe outstanding nursing and therapeutic care — for example, OT/PT services are repeatedly called excellent, and some families say nursing care “exceeded expectations.” At the same time, there are serious and recurrent complaints about nursing quality: rude or uncaring nurses, delays or failures in administering medications, and instances of staff distraction (cell phone use) instead of assisting residents. These complaints are not isolated to small issues; they include allegations of abuse and neglect and very troubling accounts of residents being left in excrement or urine, rooms left dirty, and bathing or hygiene being neglected. These safety and dignity concerns are significant and were raised emphatically by multiple reviewers.
Care quality and clinical operations: Therapy and respite care are frequently highlighted as strengths — many reviewers reported positive recovery experiences and excellent rehab services. Conversely, medication management and day‑to‑day nursing care emerge as recurrent problem areas in other reviews: delayed medications, communication gaps about meds, and inconsistent meal delivery (wrong orders, blended meals when inappropriate, food not warm) are specifically noted. Some reviewers also reported missing assistive equipment (e.g., shower chair) and the development of rashes believed to be related to hygiene lapses. The coexistence of very positive therapy/respite reports with severe nursing complaints suggests variability in care quality depending on shifts, staff members, or unit assignments.
Management, staffing, and organizational stability: Many families praise the admissions team and administrators for responsiveness and supportive communication. Several reviews credit leadership with creating a positive work culture and resident-focused care. Yet other reviews identify management instability, including past high administrator turnover and concerns about the director of nursing. Understaffing and high employee turnover are commonly cited contributors to reported gaps in care. Some reviewers explicitly express distrust (POA concerns) and request escalation paths (owner contact information), indicating that for some families, communication and resolution pathways are unsatisfactory.
Dining and activities: Opinions on dining are mixed. Some residents and families enjoy the meals and dining experience and list meals as a positive aspect; others note frequent problems such as incorrect orders, meals not served at proper temperature, or inappropriate food preparation (e.g., unnecessary blending). Activity programming is mentioned positively (daily activities and resident councils), suggesting that social engagement and community programming are strengths.
Notable patterns and implications: The reviews repeatedly show a strong split: many consistently positive reports about the environment, therapy, admissions, and specific caring staff contrast with troubling reports of neglect, medication errors, and staffing shortages. Praise for hospice care and particular nurses coexists with allegations of abuse and neglect. This pattern suggests variability in resident experience that may be tied to staffing levels, individual caregivers, shift coverage, or recent operational changes.
Conclusion and recommended next steps for families: Based on these reviews, Greenhill Villas of Mount Pleasant appears to offer an attractive, well‑maintained environment with strong therapy services and many compassionate staff, but potential safety and care consistency issues have been raised repeatedly and cannot be ignored. Prospective residents and families should consider an in‑person visit (including different days and times), ask for current staffing ratios and recent state inspection/complaint histories, inquire about medication management protocols and how the facility addresses complaints, and request references from recent families. If considering short‑term respite or rehab, emphasize confirming nurse coverage, meal practices, and hygiene protocols for the intended unit. The facility shows many strengths, but the variability in reports indicates due diligence is warranted to ensure a safe and consistent care experience.
