Overall sentiment across reviews is highly mixed and polarizing: many reviewers describe Sullivan Park Care Center as having highly dedicated, compassionate staff and strong therapy/rehab teams that produced real recovery and respectable end-of-life care, while others recount troubling incidents of neglect, mismanagement, theft, infection control failures, and serious safety lapses. The frequency and intensity of negative reports—especially around lost/stolen belongings, medication/oxygen errors, and infection transmission—are notable and create a pattern of inconsistent care and risk for vulnerable patients.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Reviews repeatedly emphasize wide variability in clinical care. Numerous families praise specific nurses, CNAs, and therapists for attentive, skilled care and individualized rehab that led to measurable improvement. Conversely, a substantial number of reviews document serious clinical lapses: delayed or omitted pain and end-of-life medications, alleged administration of wrong medications or oxygen tanks to other patients, unhooked oxygen, and poor handling/positioning that some believe led to pneumonia or further decline. Several accounts describe inadequate dementia, stroke, and complex medical management. These mixed reports suggest that while pockets of strong clinical practice exist, systemic reliability is lacking and patient outcomes may depend heavily on which staff or unit a resident is assigned to.
Staffing, professionalism and culture: Staffing is a central theme. Many reviews explicitly state staff do their best and are overworked, while others report rude, inexperienced, or even abusive aides. Praise is frequent for specific individuals and teams—therapy, CNAs and some head nurses—who are described as going above and beyond. But multiple reviewers report chronic understaffing, poor nurse responsiveness, long periods without nurse visits, and aides who fail to follow basic care routines (toileting, repositioning, hygiene). Several reviewers say staff appear afraid of management or that management does not value staff, contributing to morale problems and inconsistent service. This mix points to staffing instability and a leadership culture that may not be effectively supporting frontline workers.
Facilities, cleanliness and maintenance: The facility’s physical condition and cleanliness also drew divided impressions. Some reviewers describe the facility as very clean, with bright, spacious hallways, well-kept grounds, and comfortable communal spaces. In contrast, many others report run-down patient rooms, old furniture, torn doors, nonfunctional bed controls, unrepaired holes, dirty floors, and alarming cleanliness failures (blood in sinks, stained linens, rotten food). Maintenance delays and dated patient areas are recurring concerns. These contradictory experiences underscore uneven maintenance and cleaning standards across different units or shifts.
Safety, infection control and security: Several severe safety and security concerns appear repeatedly. Loss and theft of personal items (phones, money, jewelry, clothes, glasses) are reported multiple times, including allegations of $160 and a medical alert necklace stolen. Infection control lapses—staff not masking and alleged unvaccinated workers—are associated with at least one account of a resident contracting COVID and going into a coma. Other safety problems include falls, wet floors from plumbing leaks, unrepaired hazards, and incorrect patient placement (e.g., sending an oxygen-dependent patient to a COVID recovery section). Such issues highlight risks for vulnerable residents and indicate a need for stronger protocols and oversight.
Dining and activities: Food quality is a frequent complaint—too often described as bland, inconsistent in timing, or of low quality—though some reviewers enjoyed meals and social dining experiences. Activities and social programming are available (church ministry, bingo, outings), and some residents appreciated the social environment and recovery focus. Activity participation seems better for mobile residents; those in wheelchairs sometimes experienced fewer suitable options.
Admissions, communication and transitions: Many reviewers described problematic admissions: rooms not ready at arrival, staff unaware of incoming patients, long waits, and poor coordination from intake teams. Discharge and transition communication also drew criticism, including misrepresentation of a resident's functional status on release paperwork, lack of assistance at discharge, and poor follow-up communication. Multiple complaints note billing or insurance problems and management that is slow to resolve concerns.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is one of high variability. Positive reviews consistently credit particular individuals and teams—especially therapy staff and certain nurses—for excellent care. Negative reviews cluster around systemic issues: management responsiveness, staffing shortages, inconsistent infection control, basic security for personal items, medication/oxygen safety, and facility maintenance. For prospective residents and families, these reviews suggest that experience will depend heavily on the unit, shift, or specific staff assigned. Families considering Sullivan Park should: 1) meet the core care team (nursing leadership and therapy) and ask about staffing ratios; 2) verify security procedures for personal items; 3) confirm infection-control measures and immunization/mask policies; 4) clarify admission, medication reconciliation, and discharge procedures in writing; and 5) regularly monitor care delivery (medication timing, hygiene, toileting, food intake) and maintain close communication with nurse leadership.
In summary, Sullivan Park Care Center appears to have pockets of excellent, compassionate care—particularly in therapy and among certain nurses and CNAs—but also displays troubling, recurring systemic issues that have led to preventable harm and deep family dissatisfaction in many cases. Management action to standardize care protocols, tighten medication and oxygen safety practices, secure residents’ belongings, improve admissions/transfers, shore up maintenance and cleanliness, and stabilize staffing would be necessary to resolve the contradictions evident in these reviews and to provide consistently safe, high-quality care.
