Overall sentiment for Greenbriar at the Altamont is highly mixed, with strong positives around the building, social life, and rehabilitation services but repeated and serious negatives related to staffing, management, cleanliness, and safety. Many reviewers praise the facility’s attractive historic brick building, downtown location, spacious light-filled rooms, hardwood floors, and a nostalgic master ballroom. The setting is described as homey and convenient — close to parks, shopping, and family — and several reviewers note that the property’s themed layouts, elevators, indoor parking, and salon and laundry options make it comfortable for long-term living. Memory care and multiple levels of care (independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing and rehab) are available on site, and several families valued the private-room memory care option.
Care quality and clinical services reveal a pronounced split among reviewers. A substantial number report excellent, compassionate caregiving staff — CNAs described as caring, patient, and proactive — and many cite impressive rehabilitation outcomes, strong physical and nutritional therapy programs, and staff engagement that helped residents regain function and return home. These positive accounts often emphasize friendliness, individualized attention, and staff who treat residents with dignity. Conversely, other reviewers report serious care failures: understaffing, inattentive night shifts, missed or slow responses to call lights, insufficiently trained staff for complex needs (including I/DD), poor wound care, urinary tract infections on discharge, pneumonia or low-oxygen events, falls resulting in head injury, and even death. Several reviewers specifically mention limited nurse and physician availability (doctor visits only weekly and no 24/7 RN), which compounds concerns about timely medical evaluation and oversight.
Staffing, management, and communication are recurring themes with both praise and sharp criticism. Many visitors and residents found staff helpful, courteous, and informative, and some administrators were described as willing to work through problems. However, a number of reviews accuse administration of being rude, unprofessional, or “money-hungry.” Reports include poor communication with families, billing and insurance issues, confusing discharges, and high caregiver turnover. These management and communication issues appear to correlate with inconsistent resident experiences: where leadership and communication are responsive, families report positive outcomes; where they are not, reviews escalate to strong warnings and calls for regulatory attention.
Cleanliness and maintenance are another area of strong divergence. Multiple reviewers describe the facility as very clean, with constant cleaning efforts in public areas, nicely maintained rooms, step-in showers, and fresh smells. In stark contrast, some accounts describe severe housekeeping problems: urine odors in halls and rooms, trash and floors left uncleaned, dirty staff areas, and even roach infestations. Air conditioning unreliability, apparent electrical or wiring concerns, and a need for remodeling or updates were also mentioned. This unevenness suggests that cleanliness and maintenance quality vary by unit, shift, or time period, creating inconsistent resident environments.
Dining and activities are generally positive but mixed. The community offers many activities and programs — exercise routines, painting, bingo, get-togethers, shopping trips and outings — that many residents enjoy and cite as a key benefit and source of engagement. Meals are provided (many reviewers note two or three meals a day), and several families praise portioning and diet considerations. Still, others find the food inconsistent, prefer home-cooked meals, or note that lunch or dinner quality could improve. Dining space is often described as homey and social, though some mention small dining areas when occupancy is high.
Safety, security, and infection-control concerns appear in multiple reviews and are among the most serious issues raised. Complaints include lack of security, unattended residents at night, and allegations that lockdown/uniting strategies are not properly managed — with an accusation of mixing psych patients and critical care residents inappropriately. During infectious outbreaks (referred to in passing), some residents were kept in rooms which several reviewers accepted as necessary; others were concerned about cohorting and staff infection-control practices. These kinds of safety concerns echo the reported gaps in clinical oversight (limited RN/physician coverage) and night staffing.
In summary, Greenbriar at the Altamont offers a lot of strengths: an attractive, historic facility with good rehab services, plentiful activities, helpful amenities, and many compassionate staff members who provide excellent care. At the same time, the facility shows notable and sometimes severe weaknesses: inconsistent caregiving and housekeeping, understaffing (especially at night), troubling reports of medical neglect and safety incidents, maintenance and cleanliness variability, and communication or management problems. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong rehabilitation and social programming and the appealing building and rooms against reported risks tied to staffing levels, management responsiveness, and variability in cleanliness and clinical oversight. If considering Greenbriar, visitors should request up-to-date information on nurse and physician coverage, infection control and security practices, unit-specific cleanliness records, staffing ratios on all shifts, and written policies on discharge/billing and patient placement; arrange multiple, unannounced visits across different times (including evenings/nights) to better assess consistency of care and environment before deciding.
