Overall sentiment across the reviews for Landmark of Plano is highly mixed and polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers report excellent, compassionate care from nurses, CNAs, therapy staff, and administrators; these families describe attentive staff, clear communication, good therapy outcomes, a clean and welcoming environment, tailored meals, and meaningful activities. Many specific staff members and administrators are named and praised for being responsive, approachable, and professional, and multiple reviewers explicitly state they would recommend the facility or felt peace of mind while their loved one was there.
Counterbalancing these positive reports are numerous and sometimes serious negative accounts. Multiple reviewers allege neglectful or unsafe practices, including withheld feeding, lack of turning for immobile patients, poor pain management, delayed or missing therapy, bedsores, weight loss, dehydration, infections, and in a few cases patient death. There are reports of residents being left in distress (yelling for help and not being checked on), instances of rude or abusive staff behavior, and claims of night staff locking residents in rooms. These negative reviews describe situations that raise significant safety and quality concerns and are reported across different timeframes and shifts, suggesting inconsistent standards.
Staffing and consistency are recurring themes on both sides of the ledger. Positive reviewers emphasize a caring, family-like staff culture, effective teamwork, and clinicians who go above and beyond. Negative reviewers frequently cite understaffing, long response times, and highly variable performance between shifts or caregivers. This leads to an overall pattern of unpredictable care quality: some residents receive high-quality, attentive care with good therapy outcomes, while others experience neglect or inadequate clinical oversight.
Facility condition and environment also draw mixed feedback. Many reviewers praise the facility as clean, homely, and well-maintained despite being older. At the same time, several accounts point to building-related issues — dated rooms, small shared rooms for low-income residents, mold behind toilets, bad smells, urine on floors, temperature control problems, and other maintenance lapses. These physical issues, when paired with staffing shortages or inattentive shifts, appear to exacerbate families' negative experiences.
Dining, therapy, and activities receive both compliments and complaints. Some family members note tasty, tailored meals and a strong rehabilitation team that helped recovery, while others report very poor meals (including examples like peanut butter sandwiches), missed feedings for tube-fed patients, or inadequate therapy provision. Activities such as Bingo and live music are mentioned positively, contributing to a social atmosphere in many accounts.
Management and communication are another area of divergence. Several reviewers praise administrators by name for responsiveness, problem resolution (including assistance with Medicare/SSI issues), and open communication with families. Conversely, other reviews describe ignored complaints, slow or insufficient responses to serious incidents, confusion around medications and care plans, and even allegations of financial exploitation. The coexistence of high praise for particular administrators and serious complaints about unresolved safety issues suggests variability in leadership effectiveness or in how consistently policies are enforced.
In summary, Landmark of Plano elicits strongly positive experiences from a notable proportion of families — particularly around the compassion and clinical skill of many nurses, CNAs, and therapists — but also alarmingly serious negative reports from others that involve potential neglect and safety hazards. The dominant pattern is inconsistency: strong, caring teams and good outcomes in some cases, contrasted with understaffing, maintenance problems, and allegations of neglect or abuse in others. Families considering this facility should weigh both sets of experiences, ask specific questions about staffing levels, incident history, therapy schedules, fall and infection rates, supervision of high-acuity residents (feeding tubes, immobility, pain control), and how complaints are handled. If safety concerns or neglect are suspected, reviewers indicate escalation to regulatory bodies or moving the resident may have been pursued by some families.
