Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed to negative, with clear patterns of variability depending on unit, shift, or individual staff members. Several reviewers highlight caring and helpful nurses, an attentive receptionist, and smaller-scale aspects that can work well for some residents — for example, a small facility feel, daily cleaning, activity spaces on every floor, an on-site beauty shop, and easy parking. The memory care unit is specifically mentioned as comparatively better, and the facility accepts Medicaid, which is important for affordability.
At the same time, a number of consistent concerns surface across multiple reviews. The physical environment is frequently described as institutional, shabby, or clinic-like, with sparse decorations and dreary common areas. Many reviewers report multi-bed rooms or ward-style accommodations rather than private rooms; while a private room option is mentioned by some, others explicitly note no private rooms were available. This contributes to perceptions of overcrowding or lack of privacy and to comments about residents spending time idle in hallways with little to occupy them.
Care quality and staffing present a mixed picture. Some reviewers praise nursing staff and CNAs as attentive and helpful, crediting them with successful rehab or good personal care. However, several other reviews describe overwhelmed nurses, negative or grumbling CNAs, long waits for assistance, and staff attitudes that visitors perceived as unprofessional or rude (staff chatting and laughing while residents are unattended). There are troubling operational complaints as well: therapy or rehabilitation promised or expected was delayed or did not occur, and at least one reviewer reported a significant staff mistake that resulted in a resident injury. Multiple reviewers also said that complaints to leadership, specifically the Director of Nursing, went unresolved, and a few mentioned conflicts involving the administrator.
Dining and activities are another area of divided experience. Some reviewers praise the food and dining setup and note many group activities. Others describe the food as horrible or mediocre, with one reviewer specifically citing a repetitive menu (hot dogs three times a week). Activity availability appears uneven: while activity rooms exist on every floor, several reviewers say residents are not engaged and spend time in hallways with little to do. The memory care unit appears to fare better in engagement and environment in at least one account.
Maintenance, cleanliness, and atmosphere are recurring concerns. Although some note daily cleaning and well-maintained rooms, others report plumbing problems such as clogged toilets, an overall dreary or creepy feeling, and residents observed sleeping in wheelchairs. These contrasts suggest variability in upkeep and monitoring. Administrative responsiveness and staff professionalism are also inconsistent across reports: some visitors had positive first impressions and good communication about Medicare, while others encountered unknowledgeable tour guides, poor management, and unresolved complaints.
In summary, reviews of Grove of Elmhurst indicate a facility with some clear strengths — caring nursing in certain shifts or units, small-facility benefits like on-site services and accessible parking, and a potentially stronger memory care unit — but also significant and recurring weaknesses around building condition, multi-occupancy rooms, inconsistent food and activity programming, staffing shortages or morale issues, maintenance problems, and mixed leadership responsiveness. The overall picture is of uneven quality: experiences vary widely, and prospective residents or families should expect variation by unit and shift. Visitors evaluating this facility should tour multiple units, observe mealtimes and activities, ask specifically about room options and staffing levels, inquire how complaints are handled by the DON/administrator, and check the status of plumbing and maintenance issues before making a decision.
