Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: many reviewers praise Brookdale Auburn for its staff, activities, dining, and attractive physical environment, while a significant minority report serious concerns about management, medication safety, billing, staffing levels, and inconsistent care quality. The facility is repeatedly described as bright, newer or recently renovated, with lots of windows, fresh paint and carpet, well-kept grounds, and pleasant outdoor spaces. Multiple reviewers noted appealing studio and private-bath room options with good views and the ability to personalize rooms. The physical plant, dining room and common areas are commonly described as restaurant-like, clean, and comfortable.
Care quality and staff performance are the most frequently discussed themes and also the most contradictory. A large number of reviews emphasize warm, friendly, patient, and attentive caregivers who know residents by name, build personal relationships, and ‘‘go above and beyond.’’ Several reviewers highlighted standout staff members (activities coordinators, dining staff, specific caregivers) and recommended the community on the strength of staff compassion and engagement. The extensive activities program is a strong positive theme: residents and families report frequent exercise classes, arts and crafts, bingo, outings, live music, themed events (luau, cocktail hours, holiday parties), and transportation to outings. These programs contribute to a lively, social atmosphere that many residents enjoy.
Conversely, a notable portion of reviews detail serious operational and clinical problems. Common complaints include poor or inconsistent communication from management and administration, billing mistakes and unexpected charges (including higher-than-advertised rents, up-front fees, and extra fees for basic supplies), and reports of administrators being absent or unresponsive. Several reviews recount medication errors or improper medication handling, failures to deliver promised amenities, and inadequate nursing oversight (some commenters noted only weekly blood pressure checks and recommended having a nurse available for higher-acuity needs). Understaffing was repeatedly noted as contributing to inattentive care: residents left alone, hygiene and toileting needs not met promptly, slow responses to calls, and long waits for assistance. There are also multiple reports of neglect, alleged mismanagement, and at least a few severe incidents (theft concerns, emergency pendant not working, hospice/911 confusion) that families found alarming.
Dining reviews are generally positive but inconsistent. Many families praise the chef, call meals delicious, and describe a restaurant-style dining experience with varied menus and helpful kitchen staff. However, other reviewers say the food can be canned, frozen, or of poor variety and taste at times, and some report small portion sizes or slow service. Housekeeping and laundry are often called out positively for being tidy and reliable, although some reviews mention isolated cleanliness or odor problems in certain units (urine odor, cluttered rooms, interior scratches in memory care).
Management, billing and administrative practices emerge as recurring pain points. Several reviewers describe billing chaos — charges while a resident was hospitalized, back rent disputes, high initial fees (one report cited a $2,000 initial fee), and extras for items that reviewers expected to be included (toilet paper, basic supplies). A number of families advised insisting on written service promises and clear documentation of medication administration and billing arrangements. High turnover and perceived lack of management support for frontline staff were also noted, which may contribute to variability in service quality.
Safety and clinical risk is another important pattern. Multiple reviews raised fall-risk and dementia-safety concerns, especially in shared or open areas and with limited staff oversight. A few reports described emergency systems not working, improper med dispensing, and pandemic-related protocol lapses (staff not wearing masks), which increased perceived risk. Reviewers also indicated the community may not meet higher-acuity clinical needs for some residents (requests for hospice or hospital-level care became complicated; some felt the resident needed a higher level of nursing than the community provides). Families recommended verifying clinical capabilities, nurse availability, and emergency procedures before moving in.
Value and affordability are frequent deciding factors in reviews. Many praise the environment and staff but state that pricing is high or out of budget. Several reviewers contrasted Brookdale Auburn with less expensive or family-owned alternatives that they felt provided better personal attention or better value. Others said they found Brookdale to be a good value for the price, indicating there is substantial variability in perceived cost-effectiveness depending on the family’s expectations and needs.
In summary: Brookdale Auburn receives strong, repeated praise for its atmosphere, activities, communal dining, and many caring staff members who create a warm, engaging community. At the same time, there is a consistent cluster of serious concerns around management responsiveness, billing transparency, medication safety, staffing levels, and inconsistent care — particularly for residents with higher medical or memory-care needs. These mixed reviews indicate that the community can be an excellent match for residents seeking an active, social, hotel-like assisted living with attentive caregivers, but families should perform due diligence: confirm clinical services and nursing availability in writing, review billing and fee schedules carefully, ask about staff turnover and shift coverage, check safety measures (pendants, fall mitigation, infection control), and speak to current residents and families about recent care consistency before committing.
