Delta Shores Assisted Living (Formerly Hillcrest Memory Care)

Overall sentiment in the reviews for Delta Shores Assisted Living (formerly Hillcrest Memory Care) is highly mixed with a stark divide between families reporting compassionate, attentive care and others reporting serious deficiencies in cleanliness, safety, and management. Several reviewers praise individual caregivers as kind, knowledgeable and responsive: they cite good medication management, frequent checks, individualized attention, helpful family communication, beneficial activities, and a small-community feel. These positive accounts often highlight the facility as budget-friendly, secure for memory-care residents, and capable of providing dignified end-of-life care (including a peaceful passing and responsive communication with families).

Contrastingly, a significant number of reviews raise major concerns about hygiene and safety. Multiple families report filthy rooms, bad odors, dirty bathrooms, and explicit pest problems including cockroaches, bed bugs, and scabies. There are also alarming mentions of fecal contamination risk and poor laundry handling, which together suggest systemic infection-control and housekeeping failures in some cases. These sanitation issues are among the most serious recurring complaints and are frequently tied to claims of neglect and unsafe conditions for residents.

Staffing and management emerge as another key dividing line. Positive reviews describe attentive staff who go "above and beyond," are polite, and communicate well with families. However, many negative reviews describe the opposite: understaffing, high turnover, rude or aggressive staff behavior, and times when residents were neglected. Several reviewers note that care quality sometimes declines after initial weeks or following staff changes — indicating inconsistency that may be tied to staffing shortages or retention problems. Safety-specific concerns include lack of installed call buttons or monitoring systems, residents wandering into others' rooms, and an overall sense that resident belongings and security are not consistently protected.

Management and administration receive substantial criticism in multiple reviews. Complaints center on unresponsive, unprofessional, and money-focused behavior from leadership, poor reporting, and poor communication. There are concrete administrative issues cited as well: late contractor payments, refusal to provide proof of payment, payment delays, and long hold times on phone calls. Financial/administrative friction has affected contractors and raised red flags for families trying to resolve problems or get documentation.

Care for dementia and early-onset Alzheimer’s was another specific theme. Some families felt the facility met memory-care needs well — secure units, staff who prompted residents to eat, and staff who were knowledgeable. Others felt staff lacked necessary training for early-onset or complex dementia cases, and recommended one-on-one attention during initial placement weeks. Reports of inconsistent monitoring (e.g., frequent checks for some residents but not others) amplify concerns around the facility’s ability to reliably meet specialized cognitive-care needs.

Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Several reviews commend the food quality and variety and appreciate organized activities that engage residents. In contrast, some families described poor food and insufficient programming, suggesting variability in dining and activity experiences that may correlate with staffing levels or management oversight.

A recurring overall pattern is variability: experiences range from "amazing place" to "horrible facility." Positive and negative reports coexist, often from families with different governors of expectation, resident needs, or who arrived at different times (some note initial good care that later deteriorated). Notable single-incident reports (wallet stolen, possession mishandling) and reports of infestations and fecal contamination should be considered red flags; they point to lapses in security, hygiene, and operational consistency rather than isolated interpersonal issues alone.

In summary, Delta Shores Assisted Living shows strengths in compassionate caregiving by individual staff members, some strong medication management and family communication instances, a secure memory-care environment for some residents, and affordability. At the same time, there are serious and repeated complaints about cleanliness, pest infestations, understaffing, management responsiveness and professionalism, safety monitoring gaps, inconsistent training for dementia care, and administrative/financial issues. Prospective families should weigh these polarized reports carefully: verify current management practices, staffing ratios and turnover, pest-control and housekeeping protocols, incident reporting procedures, and the presence of functioning in-room call systems before making placement decisions. The facility may provide good care under certain staffing conditions and leadership, but the variability in reviews indicates real risk of unacceptable conditions at times.