Not a great place for a career unless you're a nurse/doctor - Anonymous employee Atrium Health Employee Review

3.0
1 May 2011
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

CHS is one of the largest employers in the Carolinas and is a great place to work if you're an actual care provider (nurse, MD, etc). If, however, you are just working on the clerical or administrative side, it's a different story. The job experience will vary depending on the site or unit that you work with.

Cons

Generally, employees in clerical or administrative roles are not given the same level of respect or recognition that the actual healthcare providers are. This would be excusable to a point, but I never felt valued as an employee in my role. Communication from management was universally poor and I got the distinct impression that my superiors were doing their best to hinder my career development to keep me in a role that I was overqualified and underpaid for. In fact, despite the fact that I was working the full 40 hours a week for almost a year, they continued to list my status as 'PRN," meaning 'as needed' or temporary. This was done to cut costs, as I wouldnt be eligible for benefits in that job status. This experience was, of course, unique to my unit, but I got the impression that this type of treatment was commonplace throughout the company.

Explore other reviews about Atrium Health

5.0
13 Feb 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Great training and culture. There is continuing education throughout the year.

Cons

I had no cons for this job. I loved working here.

2.0
21 Jun 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

I spent many years in outpatient rehabilitation and saw firsthand how much meaningful patient care can happen when clinicians are empowered. Earlier in my tenure, there were real opportunities for growth, mentorship and professional development. The team was collaborative and deeply committed to patients, and support staff worked hard under challenging circumstances. Those are strengths worth acknowledging.

Cons

As leadership changed, the culture around performance and advancement shifted. Over time I felt that institutional memory, specialty expertise and long‑term contributions were not valued consistently. Promotion practices seemed opaque, and I saw clinicians with substantially less experience and questionable communication acumen move into roles without clear explanations. Most importantly, I experienced increasing friction between high performers and leaders whose roles felt more performative than grounded in clinical or operational expertise. That tension appeared to be tolerated by the institution. Questions about decisions were discouraged, and requests for discussion went unanswered—even when they came from people with decades of service and a record of strong outcomes. After years of above‑average performance reviews, the feedback I received near the end of my tenure seemed inconsistent with my record and, in my view, hypocritical. This sudden shift in narrative felt like a mechanism to justify decisions already made rather than an honest assessment. For clinicians who invest deeply in their programs and relationships, contradictory or last‑minute feedback is demoralizing and undermines trust in the review process. Although department leaders appear to view themselves as emotionally intelligent, my experience was quite different: they delivered polished, stoic performances but did not exhibit the empathy, listening, or unbiased 360 assessment skills that clinicians need from leadership. That disconnect was another source of friction between high performers and management.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All