Glenshire Nursing Home in Richton Park, IL

Pros

• They express immense gratitude for the Director and the Landmark Park staff.
• Landmark is credited with nursing a loved one back to health, including outstanding wound care.
• The staff's professionalism, patience, and dedication to residents and families are celebrated.
• Annette is singled out as an absolute pleasure to deal with - friendly, kind, and welcoming.
• Annette the housekeeping supervisor is described as sweet, polite, and knowledgeable.
• The facility has improved significantly in cleanliness and odor control thanks to diligent staff.
• The new on-site dialysis unit, with expert nurses and techs, is a major asset.
• Residents and families enjoy daily activities thanks to a great activity staff.
• Management is praised for hard work and for taking care of families and residents, with visible improvements and a positive direction.
• New management is described as wonderful and devoted to quality care.

Cons

• They describe the facility as dirty and unclean, with strong odors and pest problems.
• They say the staff are overworked and understaffed, leading to poor patient care.
• They claim residents are neglected, left in soiled diapers, and not properly cared for.
• They accuse management of inconsistency, poor responsiveness, and abusive behavior.
• They allege medications are mishandled or not administered as prescribed.
• They report privacy violations, falsified records, and intimidation by some staff.
• They point to bedsores and other health issues as evidence of neglect.
• They warn the facility should be shut down due to neglect and unsafe conditions.
• They describe the food as cold and unappetizing, with late or irregular meal service.

Review

Glenshire Nursing Home in Richton Park is best suited for families that need a facility with strong on-site medical services and a capacity for hands-on oversight. The community has shown a path to improvement under new leadership, with reports of cleaner environments, reduced odors, and a growing focus on individual care plans. For residents who require complex medical support - such as dialysis and respiratory therapy - the in-house units are frequently cited as a meaningful advantage, as is access to a dedicated therapy staff and activity programming aimed at sustaining quality of life. The facility's potential upside rests on the competence of its clinical teams and the visibility of leadership willing to confront long-standing challenges.

Those who may want to consider alternatives are families prioritizing pristine conditions, consistent staffing, and predictable day-to-day routines. The review landscape is deeply polarized: some families praise tangible progress and compassionate frontline workers, while others describe chronic staffing gaps, inconsistent care, and serious safety concerns. Potential residents with dementia or complex behavioral needs may find the environment unstable if supervision and staffing levels do not stabilize. Privacy and dignity are recurring themes in the negative feedback, with several accounts of overcrowded rooms, lapses in hygiene, and allegations of mistreatment or mismanagement. In short, a cautious evaluator should assume variability and plan to verify current practices in real-time rather than rely on past impressions.

The strongest pros - on-site dialysis, robust respiratory therapy, and access to a dedicated rehabilitation team - offer meaningful counterweights to the facility's notable drawbacks. An in-house dialysis unit brings critical care closer to residents, reducing transport needs and enabling more consistent treatment. The respiratory program and therapy services are repeatedly praised for their professionalism and the ability to tailor plans to individual recovery trajectories, which can translate into real improvements in independence. Cleanliness and odor control have reportedly improved in recent months, suggesting that housekeeping and maintenance are gaining momentum. When these clinical strengths align with active, person-centered programming and attentive activity staff, there is a tangible gain in daily life for residents who can benefit from structured, hands-on care.

However, the main cons weigh heavily. Chronic understaffing, uneven caregiver presence, and reports of staff fatigue can compromise response times and the consistency of daily care. Recurrent observations of overcrowded rooms, privacy limitations, and outdated building infrastructure (including heating systems and general aging) undermine comfort and dignity. Several accounts allege miscommunication, administrative turnover, and even more serious red flags surrounding governance and resident treatment, including concerns about coercive tactics or overmedication. These factors do not vanish with a few upgrades; they reflect deeper systemic issues that require diligent oversight, frequent family involvement, and clear accountability from leadership.

For families navigating a decision, practical steps are essential. Schedule a thorough on-site tour at different times of day, asking to observe CNA coverage during peak activity periods and call-light response times. Request direct conversations with administration, the social services team, PT/OT/Speech staff, and the dialysis and respiratory units to gauge consistency and responsiveness. Review the latest state inspection reports and ask for current staffing ratios and turnover data. Inspect rooms for privacy and cleanliness, verify that private or semi-private spaces meet expectations, and evaluate how dementia or behavioral units are managed. Finally, visit with residents and family members who are not there to promote a balanced sense of day-to-day life beyond polished marketing materials.

In the end, Glenshire presents a nuanced equation: strong medical services and a semblance of ongoing improvement can make it a compelling option for a resident with dialysis or intensive rehab needs, provided there is active family oversight and a clear plan to monitor care. For families seeking a high level of consistency, predictability, and pristine conditions, alternatives likely offer a lower risk profile. The decision hinges on the willingness to insist on steady staffing, transparent governance, and real-time demonstrations that the promised changes have materialized. Proceed with rigor, and Glenshire may fulfill its potential; proceed without vigilance, and the red flags already echoed in reviews are likely to reassert themselves.

Transportation

• Metra (1.3 miles)
• Metra/Amtrak (6.7 miles)
• Metra (8 miles)
• Metra (8.8 miles)
• U-Haul (10.1 miles)

Restaurants

• Potbelly Sandwich Shop (1.9 miles)
• White Castle (2 miles)
• McDonald's (2.2 miles)
• Culver's (2.4 miles)
• McDonald's (3.4 miles)
• Big Apple Pancake House (3.5 miles)
• Lucky Burrito II (3.6 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (2 miles)
• Panera Bread (2.1 miles)
• Starbucks (3.7 miles)
• Starbucks (6.5 miles)
• Starbucks (6.6 miles)
• Starbucks (7.8 miles)
• Eggheadz Cafe (7.8 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (2.3 miles)
• Walgreens (2.5 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2.6 miles)
• Walgreens (3.7 miles)
• Walgreens (3.9 miles)
• Walgreens (4.8 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4.9 miles)

Hospitals

• Elisabeth Ludeman Center (2.6 miles)
• Franciscan St James Health (3.3 miles)
• Franciscan Health (5.1 miles)
• Franciscan Health Chicago Heights (5.1 miles)
• South Suburban Hospital (6.4 miles)
• Ingalls Memorial (9.7 miles)

Physicians

• St James Medical Center Olympia Fields (3.3 miles)
• Aunt Martha's Health Care (5.1 miles)
• Advocate South Suburban Hospital: Smith Sharon C MD (6.3 miles)
• United Pain Services (6.5 miles)
• Dr Uppuluri, Dr Patel, Dr Chavin Urology (6.6 miles)
• Pinnacle Dermatology- Frankfort (6.6 miles)
• MK Periodontics and Implants (7 miles)

Parks

• Arbor Park (5.7 miles)

Places of Worship

• Good Shepherd Lutheran Church (5.9 miles)
• Parkview Christian Church (9.8 miles)

Theaters

• Emagine Frankfort (6.9 miles)
• Orland Park Cinema Orland Park, Il (10.1 miles)