Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed, with wide variability between exceptionally positive accounts and very serious negative experiences. A consistent pattern is the presence of pockets of excellence — particularly within therapy, wound care, and among specific nursing and CNA staff — alongside reports of systemic problems including neglect, poor hygiene, medication mistakes, and management failures. Many families report that the therapy department (PT/OT/rehab) is a core strength: therapists are described as motivating, skilled, and instrumental in returning residents home. Wound care and certain clinical leaders also receive repeated praise for successful outcomes.
Care quality and staffing emerge as the clearest dividing line. Numerous reviewers praise individual nurses, aides, CNAs, and therapists by name for kindness, clinical competence, availability, and emotional support. These staff members are credited with teaching families, facilitating recovery, providing compassionate end–of–life care, and ensuring comfort. Conversely, a large number of reviews describe inconsistent caregiving: patients left without repositioning, soiled or uncleaned after toileting, unattended after falls, or without timely medication. Several reviews describe very serious lapses — fecal matter on bathroom seats, filthy bedside commodes, bedsores from lack of rotation, prolonged absence of critical eye drops or medications, and delayed attention to acute conditions such as bleeding. Night shifts and some aides are repeatedly cited as areas where care can be markedly worse.
Safety, infection control, and documentation raise repeated concerns. Multiple reviewers reported failures in monitoring and safety that led to falls, missed medical deterioration, or suspected neglect. Infection-control and quarantine practices are described as inconsistent — with examples including lack of PPE, a quarantine wing where patients were held up to ten days, and poor communication about isolation. Allegations of forged rounds and falsified documentation appear in the reviews and point to potential systemic accountability problems. Families repeatedly recommend active advocacy when a loved one is admitted: checking medications, securing valuables, monitoring wound care and turning schedules, and verifying that care plans are followed.
The facility environment and housekeeping are reported unevenly. Several reviewers describe an outdated, run-down building with small, cramped, or dismal rooms, worn furniture, and recurring odors (urine, fecal, or other foul smells). Others report recent improvements — cleaner, friendlier atmosphere, painting, and better housekeeping. The dementia unit and some wings receive very positive comments about cleanliness and specialized care, indicating variability by unit. Theft and lost items (dentures, glasses, socks, and clothing reportedly misplaced or stolen) are a frequent and emotionally charged complaint; this raises both logistical and trust issues for families.
Food and activities are also variable but less central to safety concerns. Many reviewers praise meals, call nutritional services “amazing,” and note helpful dietary accommodations. Conversely, others describe food as awful, sparse, or not appropriate for diabetics. Activities programming (bingo, movies, parties, games) gets positive mention and is seen as beneficial for social engagement and quality of life.
Management, communication, and administrative responsiveness are inconsistent across reviews. Some families commend administrators (several named) for open-door policies, prompt problem-solving, and visible leadership. Other reviews accuse management of being unresponsive, disrespectful, or even complicit in poor practices; specific reports include rude office staff, billing disputes, and perceived indifference to serious incidents. Phone unresponsiveness, slow call-light responses, staff socializing during meal times, and language barriers are common themes that reduce confidence in day-to-day oversight.
Across reviews the most actionable themes are: 1) the facility has demonstrable clinical strengths (especially in rehab, specific therapists, and certain nurses/CNAs) that produce strong recovery outcomes; 2) there is notable inconsistency and serious risks tied to staffing, safety monitoring, medication management, hygiene, and lost property; and 3) experiences vary widely depending on unit, shift, and individual staff. For prospective families this translates into a recommendation to actively advocate for loved ones, verify medication and wound-care plans on admission, secure valuables, ask about staffing levels and unit-specific practices (especially for dementia or isolation wings), and get written confirmation of therapies and schedules. The reviews indicate that while high-quality, compassionate care exists at Arlington Heights Health and Rehabilitation Center, the facility also exhibits systemic weaknesses that have, in multiple accounts, led to dangerous or emotionally traumatic outcomes. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s rehab and therapy strengths against these documented safety and management concerns and, if choosing this facility, maintain close oversight and clear communication with leadership.
