The reviews present a strongly mixed and sometimes polarized picture of Glendale Home – Schdy Cnty Dept Social Services. Some reviewers describe a modern, attractive facility with large, bright rooms and a rebuilt building in which residents appear comfortable and safe. Several reviews praise kind, attentive staff, high-quality care including daily physical therapy, and adequate meals handled by a well-regarded kitchen staff. Planned social programming such as bingo, religious services, and visiting entertainers is present and appreciated by some family members. A subset of reviewers emphasize that issues are addressed when raised and that their relatives enjoy being around other residents. These comments paint a picture of a facility that, in some units or at certain times, delivers acceptable to good care in a pleasant physical environment.
Counterbalancing the positive accounts are multiple, serious concerns that recur across reviews. The most urgent safety-related complaint describes an infection-control breakdown: a coronavirus-positive dental hygienist allegedly attended to patients, infecting part of the home. Although other reviewers explicitly cite strong safety measures and no recent COVID cases, the presence of this report highlights inconsistent infection-control practices. Related facility concerns include reports of dirty conditions, bad odors, ventilation problems including chemical smells and stuffy air, and a lack of entrance security and adequate signage. These environmental and infection-control issues are significant because they directly affect resident health and comfort.
Staffing and care-quality issues are another major and consistent theme. Several reviewers report chronic understaffing, large caseloads, and resulting delays: long waits for showers and dressing, delayed or insufficient medication administration, and inadequate personal care. Where staffing is thin, reviewers report neglectful outcomes such as bed sores and wounds, residents calling out for nurses without timely response, and staff that seem unsure how to manage patients’ needs. At the same time, other reviewers explicitly praise staff and say there are no complaints—suggesting considerable variability depending on unit, shift, or over time. Administrative problems are also noted: unhelpful or hostile administrators and poor communication with families compound the frustrations caused by staffing shortfalls.
Activities and dining receive generally moderate-to-positive notes but with room for improvement. Multiple reviewers say daily activities are planned and that residents have options like bingo and visiting entertainers, but at least one reviewer called out that activities need improvement. Dining is described as adequate or fine by many, and the kitchen staff is specifically complimented in one review. These points suggest that social programming and food service are functional but inconsistent in quality or variety.
Overall pattern and implications: the reviews point to a facility with substantial variability. Positive reports emphasize updated facilities, good rooms, caring staff, therapy services, and acceptable meals. Negative reports emphasize inconsistent infection control, poor cleanliness in parts of the home, staffing shortages that produce delayed care and neglect, ventilation and odor issues, and problematic communication from administration. Because strengths and weaknesses are both prominent, prospective residents and families should view Glendale Home as a place where quality likely depends on specific units, staffing levels at particular times, and management responsiveness.
Given the contrasting accounts, it would be prudent for decision-makers to verify current conditions directly: tour the facility multiple times (including evenings/weekends), ask about staffing ratios and typical response times, request recent inspection and infection-control records, inquire specifically about medication administration processes, wound care protocols, bathing schedules, call-bell response metrics, and ventilation/odors remediation. Also ask how the facility handled the cited COVID incident and what steps were taken to prevent recurrence. The reviews indicate there are real strengths to the facility but also clear and potentially serious risks tied to staffing and infection-control consistency that deserve careful, concrete verification before making placement decisions.
