Overall impression: Reviews for Park Avenue Extended Care Facility are highly mixed, showing a wide range of resident and family experiences. Many reviewers praise the facility for its strong rehabilitation services, compassionate caregivers, attractive setting and successful patient outcomes; at the same time a substantial minority report serious operational, staffing, cleanliness, and safety concerns. The pattern suggests a facility that can deliver excellent short-term rehab care and rehabilitation outcomes for some patients, while struggling with consistency across shifts, staff roles, and management periods.
Care quality and staff: One of the most consistent positive themes is the strength of the rehab and therapy teams. Multiple reviewers singled out physical therapists (for example Colleen) and rehabilitation staff for getting patients walking quickly and regaining confidence, and several families reported successful discharges home. Many reviewers describe nurses and aides as caring and attentive — specific aides and staff (Elizabeth, Mrs. Puka, Victoria, Alana) are praised for compassionate, patient-focused work and for facilitating family contact. However, this is balanced by frequent reports of variability: weekend and night shifts were often described as less attentive, some nurses were labeled "nasty," and a few social workers (notably one named Julia in the reviews) were called unhelpful or unavailable. The result is a bifurcated view: when staffing and individual caregivers are engaged, care quality is high; when they are not, families notice neglect and poor bedside care.
Facility, rooms and cleanliness: Many reviewers compliment the physical facility — bright rooms, water views, a beautiful lobby, and generally well-maintained public spaces. Several noted rooms were spotless, spacious, and pleasant, and that some families could personalize rooms with their own furniture. Conversely, other reviews report inconsistent cleanliness on arrival or during stays (dirty floors, dirty dining tables, diapers on beds), and a few accounts describe residents left in poor condition. This inconsistency suggests that housekeeping and direct care coverage may vary by shift or time, correlating with the broader reports of staffing shortages.
Dining and amenities: Dining experiences are also mixed. The dining room is often praised as large and bright, with some residents enjoying meals and reporting weight gain. Yet other reviewers described the food as "gross-tasting," cited specific problems (for example, serving hard-boiled eggs in the shell at breakfast), and mentioned that meal quality prompted investigations. Amenities such as activities and recreation receive positive notes — reviewers reported engaging programs and busy daytime schedules that supported recovery and resident satisfaction.
Management, communication and safety: Several reviewers praised clear communication from staff and proactive social workers who scheduled FaceTime or regularly called to update families during restricted visitation periods (COVID-era examples). Other reviewers report trouble reaching the facility, frequent unanswered calls at the front desk or switchboard, poor follow-through from administration, and a sense that leadership is more focused on metrics than on patient care. Worrying safety-related reports include a very serious claim that a stroke patient was dropped and subsequently suffered a broken hip, and descriptions of residents being left without bathroom assistance. There are also reports of lax COVID precautions by staff at times, combined with visitor restrictions that frustrated families. Reports of racism and staff insensitivity are concerning and contribute to the negative experiences described by some families.
Staffing and operational patterns: Staffing shortages recur across many reviews — aides described as overworked and short-staffed, cleaning and maintenance personnel inadequate, and variability across shifts leading to uneven service. These shortages appear to be a core driver of many negative issues: delayed cleaning on arrival, missed bedside assistance, inconsistent meal service, and difficulties contacting staff or administrators. Reviews suggest these are not isolated to a single department, affecting nursing, therapy, social work, housekeeping, and front-desk operations.
Polarized experiences and recommendations: The strongest theme is polarization. Numerous family members call Park Avenue the "best place" for rehab — praising therapists, cleanliness, and compassionate care — while others warn explicitly to avoid the facility, citing neglect, unresponsive management, and serious safety incidents. Several reviews indicate past years were excellent but that a change in leadership corresponded with declining care or priorities. This suggests that experiences may be highly sensitive to staffing levels, current leadership, and which specific teams are on duty.
Conclusion and practical implications: If evaluating Park Avenue for a family member, reviewers’ comments suggest a few practical precautions: tour the specific unit and room at the times when care will be provided (including weekends/nights if relevant), ask directly about current staffing ratios and turnover, request examples of recent quality or safety incidents and how they were addressed, inquire about infection-control practices and visitor policies, and speak with therapy leaders about expected rehab goals. The facility demonstrably delivers excellent rehab and can be a strong choice for recovery when staffing and teams are functioning well; however, the frequency of operational and safety concerns means families should verify current conditions and follow up closely during a stay.
