The reviews for Greenwood Healthcare Center present a sharply polarized picture: a meaningful subset of families and residents report excellent, even life-changing, care—particularly in therapy/rehab and from certain nurses and staff—while a substantial and vocal group report severe, systemic problems that indicate neglect, unsafe practice, and poor management oversight.
Positive themes concentrate around specific frontline caregivers and therapy teams. Multiple reviews name individual nurses and therapists (for example, several mentions of "Jules," "Julie," "Dawn," "Amy," and "Dave" among others) who provided compassionate, skilled care. Rehabilitation and therapy services receive consistent praise in many accounts: families describe strong PT/OT/speech therapy, successful recoveries, restored independence, and engaging activities and outings (magicians, field trips, an aviary). Some units are characterized as friendly, home-like, and well-managed, with long-tenured staff and good communication. In several instances staff acted promptly to send residents to hospital or arranged effective transitions in care, and a minority of reviews describe clean rooms, attentive nursing, and high overall satisfaction.
However, a large number of reviews describe serious and repeated problems that paint a picture of inconsistent and at times dangerous care. The most alarming recurring issues include infection control failures (COVID exposure, sepsis, pseudomonas), unsanitary conditions (urine and fecal odors, soiled garments left on residents, bugs), and specific critical lapses in respiratory and ventilator care (reports of tracheotomy tubes not changed for excessive periods, ventilator alarms ignored until family intervened, and trach/vent tubing becoming undone). Several accounts recount residents returning sicker after discharge, development of bedsores, dehydration during dialysis, repeated pneumonias tied to inadequate trach maintenance, and even deaths blamed on delayed or insufficient care. These are not isolated minor complaints but specific safety incidents reported across multiple reviews.
Operational and staffing issues are frequently cited as root causes. Short-staffing, high turnover, and distracted staff (socializing, on personal phones, standing at nurses' stations) are repeatedly mentioned and often linked to long call-light response times, missed baths and medication administration, residents left in soiled clothing or beds for hours, and failures to reposition bedridden patients. Weekend coverage is called out as particularly weak, with an ineffective weekend manager mentioned. Families report poor communication from administration, exclusion from care planning, lack of transparency, and a sense that management is more focused on money than care—exacerbated by reports of high fees (around $12,000/month cited) for what reviewers describe as substandard service.
Laundry, food, and facility maintenance emerge as persistent quality-of-life concerns. Numerous reviewers report lost clothing, mixed or unwashed laundry with other residents' items, and instances of fecal-contaminated garments returned. Dining is often described as hospital-grade, bland, or poor—although a few reviewers praise the chef or say meals were acceptable. The physical plant is described as aging and sometimes dirty (stained carpets, cluttered halls), though a minority praise beautiful grounds and sunny rooms. Security and administrative processes (alarm/door disorganization, front desk rudeness) add to a sense of mismanagement for some families.
Infection prevention practices and staff safety behaviors are inconsistent according to reviews. Multiple accounts mention staff not wearing masks or PPE, smoking near the entrance, and lack of employee vaccination policies—factors families tie to COVID outbreaks and severe resident illness. There are also troubling reports of privacy violations, missing trach parts, medication misadministration (e.g., antibiotic to PICC line concerns), and claims of a lack of RN rounding or oversight. Several reviewers indicate they escalated complaints to higher corporate reporting lines or state boards of health, and at least one review mentions regulatory involvement.
Overall sentiment is highly mixed but leans negative when weighted by the severity of the adverse incidents described. The pattern suggests variability by unit, shift, and individual staff: while some residents receive excellent, attentive care and benefit from robust therapy and activities, other residents—especially those with high acuity needs (vent/respiratory, memory care, long-term care)—appear to experience neglectful or unsafe care related to staffing shortages, process breakdowns, and lapses in clinical practice. For prospective residents and families, the reviews advise careful due diligence: ask specific questions about staffing ratios (including weekend coverage), infection-control policies and staff vaccination, respiratory/ventilator care protocols, laundry systems, medication administration processes, and how the facility handles family inclusion in care planning. The presence of praised staff and strong rehab offerings suggests the facility can deliver high-quality care in pockets, but the frequency and severity of the critical reports indicate systemic issues that require attention and oversight before entrusting high-acuity loved ones to Greenwood Healthcare Center.
