Overall impression: The reviews of Immanuel Campus of Care show a starkly mixed picture, with a large number of very positive experiences coexisting alongside serious, sometimes alarming negative reports. Many reviewers praise the staff, activities, dining options, grounds, and the convenience of having multiple levels of care on one campus. At the same time a subset of reviews describe neglect, abuse, sanitation crises, medication errors, theft, and management failures severe enough to have prompted regulatory attention in some instances. The result is a polarized set of sentiments where the quality of experience appears highly dependent on which unit, which staff are on duty, and changes in management or oversight over time.
Staff and caregiving: A common positive theme is that numerous direct-care staff, nurses, and some leaders are described as friendly, compassionate, attentive, and committed. Multiple reviewers call out specific staff members and shifts (including dedicated night staff, life enhancement specialists, and therapists) for good care, quick responses, and supportive communication. Rehabilitation and therapy services, post-surgery assistance, and end-of-life comfort care received substantial praise in many accounts.
However, there are also repeated and very serious reports of staff neglect and abuse in other reviews. Allegations range from inattentiveness and long response times to call lights, to physical abuse (punching, slapping, choking), unexplained medical procedures (reported removal of teeth), and unexplained injuries. Several reviews mention that calls for help went unanswered, emergency buttons did not work, and that paramedics had to be involved. These accounts are reinforced by mentions of investigations by Adult Protective Services, an ombudsman, and a Special Focus Facility designation in at least one report, including claims of resident deaths tied to inadequate insulin administration and other care failures. This creates a contradictory picture: some units and teams perform at a high standard while others appear dangerously understaffed or poorly supervised.
Clinical quality, safety, and medication management: On the plus side, some reviewers highlight the availability of an on-site medical team, 24/7 nursing coverage, and clinically focused care in certain units. Yet multiple reviews report medication errors, mismanagement of prescriptions, withheld medications, and critical clinical lapses (recurrent UTIs, bedsores, dehydration, restricted access to tablets or smoke breaks, and inadequate wound care). The presence of both competent clinical teams and contemporaneous reports of dangerous clinical incidents suggests large variability in clinical oversight and consistency across the campus.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Several reviewers praise attractive, well-landscaped grounds, clean apartments (especially independent living units), heated pools, and renovated common areas. Many note spacious rooms, balconies with views, and amenities like grocery trips and included utilities. Conversely, many other reviews describe outdated, poorly maintained buildings with rot, holes in walls, faulty wiring, insufficient hot water, old mattresses, and persistent urine/diaper/feces odors. Reports of roaches and rats, soiled beds left for hours, food trays left out, and rooms in a "disgusting" state are particularly concerning. Some reviewers note renovations and improvements (repainting, roof repairs, upgraded HVAC) under new management, while others report that these changes are uneven and that serious maintenance problems remain in several units.
Dining, activities, and lifestyle services: Dining receives mixed but specific feedback. Positive comments describe restaurant-style dining, good food, chef salads, a bistro transition, flexible menus, and pay-as-you-go options. Activities are frequently praised: bingo, gardening, casino trips, grocery outings, socials, and daily engagement by life enrichment staff. These lifestyle services contribute to many residents enjoying a social, active community. Negative complaints include inconsistent meal service (meals running out, cold food), diabetics' dietary needs unmet, and accessibility issues (dining located across a parking lot for some residents), which reduce convenience and resident satisfaction.
Management, communication, and culture: Reviews repeatedly highlight management as an inflection point. Several reviewers commend particular managers and new leadership for improvements, responsiveness, and supportive policies. Other reviewers accuse management of hostile behavior: threats, illegal eviction attempts, retaliation against complainants, lack of transparency, and even cover-ups of abuse. Complaints about poor communication—phones going unanswered, transfers between staff, and false promises about transport or approvals—are common. Reports of theft, missing belongings during moves, and lack of accountability for lost items further erode trust for many families.
Regulatory and systemic concerns: A subset of reviews describe extreme outcomes—resident deaths tied to insulin or heat-related incidents, Special Focus Facility designation, and ongoing investigations by protective agencies. These are coupled with repeated allegations of staff punishment for complaints, and a culture where reporting can lead to fear of retaliation. Such reports suggest systemic issues in certain parts of the campus that go beyond isolated incidents.
Patterns and variability: The overall pattern is one of high variability. Many residents and families report a safe, pleasant, active, and well-cared-for environment with responsive staff and meaningful activities. At the same time, there are multiple independent reports of severe neglect, abuse, and dangerous clinical or sanitary conditions in other units or at other times. Improvements and renovations have been mentioned, and new management has been credited in some reviews, but long-standing complaints about maintenance, staffing, and clinical safety persist in others.
Conclusion: The reviews indicate that Immanuel Campus of Care can offer strong services—caring staff members, robust activities, a medical team, and attractive outdoor spaces—especially in independent living and some assisted units. However, the volume and severity of negative reports (medication errors, neglect, abuse allegations, pest infestations, theft, and regulatory actions) are substantial and cannot be overlooked. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sets of experiences carefully, ask targeted questions about the specific unit of interest, current staffing ratios, recent regulatory actions and their remediation, and observe cleanliness and care practices during multiple visits and different times of day. The divergence of experiences suggests that outcomes may depend strongly on which particular unit, team, and management cohort is responsible for a resident’s care.
