Overall impression: The reviews paint a highly mixed — and frequently troubling — picture of The Grove of Evanston. While several reviewers praise individual staff members, CNAs, nurses, social workers, and therapists for being caring, professional, and responsive, an even larger number of reviews report serious systemic problems including neglect, cleanliness failures, understaffing, and administrative issues. The tenor of the feedback indicates wide variability in resident experience: some residents and families encountered attentive, proactive care and smooth discharge coordination, while many others experienced neglect, safety concerns, and disrespectful or unresponsive staff behavior.
Care quality and clinical responsiveness: Multiple reviewers reported that nurses and CNAs at times provide excellent hands-on care, coordinate with home health, and offer PT seven days a week. However, an alarming number of accounts describe ignored call lights, nurses failing to address or denying health problems (including back/neck/ear issues and fall-related injuries), and general neglect. There are specific reports of serious clinical lapses — for example, a resident left in a soiled state for two days and fall-related spine bumps not acted upon — that indicate inconsistent monitoring and response to medical needs. For families, this inconsistency produces significant anxiety and a lack of trust in the facility's ability to manage health issues reliably.
Staffing, attitudes, and culture: Staffing problems are a dominant theme. Reviewers describe weekend understaffing, lazy or unresponsive CNAs, and nurses with bad attitudes. High turnover — particularly among activities staff — and reports of low pay may contribute to staffing instability. Some employees are singled out as “amazing” and “accommodating,” performing constant check-ins and going above and beyond; however, these positive reports coexist with descriptions of a demoralized workforce and an administration perceived as uncaring or focused on profit. Several reviews directly accuse management of corruption and prioritizing money over resident welfare, a perception that exacerbates family concerns.
Cleanliness, safety, and environment: Cleanliness and safety problems recur frequently. Complaints include filthy floors, pervasive urine odor, soiled diapers, bed linen not changed despite requests, rampant bugs, and laundry policies that leave personal items uncollected. There are also noise issues — loud roommates, four-bed rooms with multiple TVs on, and staff slamming doors at night — which are especially problematic for residents with dementia or sensitivity to noise. Wheelchair-accessibility issues and the absence of cable/streaming services were also noted. Collectively, these reports suggest lapses in basic housekeeping, infection control, and the maintenance of a restful, safe environment.
Dining and dietary management: Opinions about meals are mixed: some reviewers praised the food, while others reported that meals were not reliably provided (forcing friends/families to bring food) and that dietary needs — specifically for diabetics — were not properly managed. This inconsistency in dining services and therapeutic diet management is another area of concern that directly affects resident health and family peace of mind.
Activities, therapy, and rehabilitation: Positive comments about physical therapy being available seven days a week and successful coordination for discharge show that rehabilitation services can be a strength. Yet other reviewers describe delays in evaluation and therapy (for example, no therapy or evaluation for three days), and high turnover among activities staff undermines program continuity. This mixed record suggests the facility can provide robust therapy when staffed well, but coverage and follow-through are uneven.
Administration, finances, and trust: Many negative reviews express distrust of administration, alleging corruption, theft or missing money, and a profit-first orientation. Conversely, some families report helpful social workers and administrators who facilitate POA arrangements and support discharge planning. These conflicting experiences point to inconsistent leadership engagement and possible internal variability by shift or department. Several reviewers explicitly stated they lost peace of mind and considered moving their loved one to other facilities, such as Sunrise.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The dominant pattern is inconsistency. Positive experiences appear real and meaningful for some residents, but negative incidents — particularly those involving hygiene, clinical neglect, or unresponsiveness to calls — are frequent and severe enough to merit careful scrutiny. Prospective residents and families should conduct thorough, targeted visits (including nights and weekends), ask for staffing ratios and turnover statistics, request recent inspection and complaint records, verify infection-control and laundry/linen protocols, confirm diabetic meal plans and therapy schedules, and seek references from current families. If considering placement for a person with dementia or mobility needs, evaluate noise levels, roommate configurations, restroom and shower assistance, and actual wheelchair accessibility.
In summary: The Grove of Evanston elicits sharply divided experiences. There are clear strengths — individual staff members, available PT, and cases of excellent discharge coordination — but recurring, serious deficiencies in staffing consistency, hygiene, responsiveness to medical needs, and management trustworthiness create substantial risk. The facility may provide good care under certain conditions or with particular staff, but the frequency and severity of the negative reports mean families should proceed cautiously and verify that the specific unit, staffing patterns, and administrative leadership meet their expectations before committing to placement.
