Overall sentiment in the reviews for Diversicare of Foley is highly polarized: many reviewers praise individual staff members, the rehabilitation program, and aspects of daily life, while a significant number of reviews describe serious problems with staffing, cleanliness, safety, and management. This mixed pattern suggests inconsistent performance across shifts, units, and time periods. Positive accounts frequently emphasize compassionate, attentive caregiving by specific nurses and CNAs, strong physical and occupational therapy teams, and a social, welcoming environment. Negative accounts describe systemic issues that materially affect resident safety and quality of life.
Care quality and staffing: One of the clearest themes is inconsistency in care. Multiple reviewers report excellent, highly skilled nursing care, with several staff members and teams singled out by name (examples include Margo, Jeanne Smith, Deborah/Debra/Debora, and the physical therapy team). Rehab outcomes and therapy support are repeatedly commended. At the same time, numerous reviews cite chronic understaffing, high turnover, and overworked CNAs. Shortages are particularly noted on weekends and after standard hours, producing long response times to call lights, medication delays, inadequate assistance with toileting and transfers, and in some cases neglect leading to bedsores, falls, or injuries. This variability—where some shifts deliver exemplary care and others do not—appears to drive the polarized experiences.
Safety, neglect, and serious incidents: Several reviews allege serious safety and neglect incidents, including delayed ambulance response, repeated falls resulting in fractures or hospital transfers, inadequate wound/pressure sore management in some instances, and allegations of medication errors or deliberate over- or under-medication. There are also disturbing allegations of medication theft and financial exploitation. Reports of hospice patient mistreatment and claims that residents were left unclean, unfed, or sedated raise red flags about oversight and regulatory compliance. These accounts, when taken together, indicate that some families experienced care that they regarded as dangerously deficient.
Cleanliness, facility condition, and environment: The facility's physical condition is described inconsistently. Multiple reviewers praise bright, welcoming communal areas and comfortable living spaces that encourage social activity, while many others describe an old, rundown building with poor curb appeal, recurring odors of urine and feces, roach sightings, dirty rooms and bathrooms, and lingering maintenance needs. These opposing accounts again reflect variability—some units or rooms appear adequately maintained, while others have serious cleanliness and sanitation problems.
Dining and activities: Reviews about dining similarly diverge. Positive comments note engaging activities (arts and crafts, exercise classes) and social opportunities that helped residents make friends. Conversely, a substantial set of complaints concerns food quality: repetitive menus, cold or late meals, unhealthy preparations, and occasions where food hygiene was questionable. Some reviewers found meals acceptable or improved over time, while others labeled the food “horrendous” or complained about plates not being used and food handled improperly.
Management, administration, and billing: Administrative performance shows mixed impressions. Some families praise helpful admissions and social work staff who explained Medicaid and insurance processes clearly and acted proactively. Multiple reviewers also reported improvements under new leadership (new administrator and director of nursing). However, many others describe poor communication from management and the director of nursing, apathetic attitudes by some supervisors, delayed or incorrect billing, collections threats, and slow refund processing. A number of families said they planned to report the facility to the state due to unresolved problems. These administrative issues compound trust problems when they coincide with clinical concerns.
Memory care and specialized units: Memory care and dementia-related care draw particularly strong concern in several reviews. Allegations include over-sedation, use of ankle bracelets or restraints, restricted access to outdoors, and residents becoming bedbound or declining while in the unit. While some reviewers claim the memory care has improved and praise staff, the recurring nature of severe negative reports indicates a pattern worth noting for families considering placement for loved ones with cognitive impairment.
Patterns, personnel, and notable praise: Across the reviews, particular staff members and teams receive repeated commendations—especially in rehab and some nursing/CNA roles—indicating pockets of excellent care and committed personnel. Names mentioned positively include Deborah/Debra/Debora (CNAs), Margo and Jeanne Smith (nursing), and specific social workers and admissions staff. Positive reviewers frequently highlight staff warmth, family communication, and a nurturing atmosphere. However, the presence of many competing negative narratives about the same facility suggests there are significant inconsistencies in staff performance and supervision.
Conclusion and implications: The aggregate picture is one of a facility with notable strengths—especially in rehabilitation services, several highly dedicated caregivers, and meaningful activities for residents—coupled with serious systemic weaknesses in staffing levels, cleanliness, food service, administrative oversight, and safety protocols. Reviews indicate that experience may depend heavily on timing, unit assignment, and specific staff on duty. For families and referrals, these patterns suggest due diligence: verify current staffing levels, recent survey or inspection results, meet unit teams, and ask specific questions about memory care policies, infection control, incident history, and billing procedures. For the facility, reviewers implicitly point to priorities for improvement: stabilize staffing, strengthen supervisory accountability, address sanitation and facility repairs, improve meal service, and resolve billing/communication failures to reduce the wide variance in resident experience.
