Overall sentiment in the reviews for Westmont of Brentwood is mixed but leans toward positive for day-to-day resident experience when staffing and leadership are stable. The most consistent praise centers on frontline staff—caregivers, aides, activity directors, dining staff, and many reception/front-desk employees are repeatedly described as friendly, loving, compassionate, and personally attentive. Numerous reviewers emphasize that staff know residents by name, provide individualized attention, and go out of their way to help. Cleanliness and maintenance of common areas, attractive courtyards and gardens, bright dining areas, and well-kept grounds are repeatedly noted; many reviewers describe the facility as beautiful, well-appointed, and comfortable.
Care quality is a major theme with more nuance. Many families report excellent hands-on care, good hygiene/grooming support, timely help with daily needs, and professional med techs, especially in assisted living and among long-tenured staff. At the same time, there are recurring concerns about inconsistent care in the memory care wing and during periods of staff turnover. Specific issues mentioned include missed or delayed medication/orders, insufficiently trained temporary staff, occasional unnecessary ER transfers, unsupervised wandering, and variability in activity offerings in memory care. Several reviews recount serious incidents (privacy breaches, wound/infection concerns, and delayed family notifications), suggesting that when management and nursing leadership are unstable or remote, care quality and resident safety can suffer.
Dining and food receive polarized feedback. Many residents and families praise the culinary team, call meals "very good" or "excellent," and mention chef involvement in activities. Others describe the food as "terrible" or "horrendous," and note that dining quality may be inconsistent between assisted living and memory care or fluctuate with staffing changes. There is also a pattern of policy changes and operational cutbacks affecting food: reviewers report the removal of freely available snacks (crackers, cookies, granola bars, fruit), limits on bringing food to rooms, leftover delivery fees (e.g., a $7 tray fee), and restrictions on day-to-day dining access. These changes have caused frustration because they coincide with price increases or perceived reductions in service.
Activities and social programming are generally highlighted as strong features for many residents: vibrant activity calendars, exercise classes, bingo, crafts, live entertainment, outings (e.g., ball games), and engaged activity directors receive frequent praise. However, several reviewers note reductions to trips and social offerings—especially when transportation (bus/van) has been unreliable or service has been suspended—which diminishes the resident experience. Memory care activity offerings are described variably; some reports praise music and tailored programs, while others call memory care programming minimal or TV-focused.
Operations, management, and communication are recurring areas of concern. Many positive reviews mention responsive management and regular family meetings, but an almost-equal volume of negative reviews call out high turnover among directors and executive staff, inconsistent leadership presence (part-time or rarely onsite), poor communication about incidents or schedule changes, and abrupt policy changes. Several families report billing or invoicing inconsistencies, pressure to pay upfront, and disputes over charges. Policy and rule changes (e.g., food restrictions, pet/security procedures) introduced by new leadership have generated friction, particularly when they are not clearly communicated or they reduce resident convenience.
Staffing and training issues underlie many operational criticisms. Understaffing and reliance on temporary agency staff with minimal training are cited in multiple reviews, leading to long response times to call buttons, uneven housekeeping and laundry service, and caregiver availability concerns. These operational gaps appear to worsen during leadership transitions. Conversely, when staffing is stable and experienced, reviewers consistently report very good care and a strong sense of community.
Safety and privacy are sensitive themes with a few serious allegations that families raised: privacy invasions (intrusive room entry), delayed notification for medical issues or incidents, and at least one report of a resident found in another's bed or exposed. These incidents are not the majority but are significant because they strongly affect family trust. Reviewers also mention after-hours lockouts, security changes affecting residents with dogs, and muddy outdoor hazards from overwatering—practical safety concerns that influence daily living.
Cost and value perceptions vary. Several reviewers find Westmont of Brentwood to be good value relative to skilled nursing or other competitors, praising staffing, amenities, and activities. Others criticize rising fees coupled with reduced services, expensive memory care rates, and surprise charges (tray fees, billing disputes). Affordability and transparency of fees are recurring decision factors for prospective families.
In summary, Westmont of Brentwood offers many strengths that attract positive reviews: caring frontline staff, a clean and attractive campus, varied apartment options, a robust activity calendar, and onsite memory care. The main weaknesses are rooted in management stability, staffing levels/training, inconsistent communication, policy changes that reduce previously offered conveniences, and spotty performance in memory care units during periods of turnover. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong personal care and community attributes against risks tied to leadership continuity, staffing reliability, and recent operational/policy shifts. Visiting multiple times, meeting activity and nursing staff, asking about turnover rates and recent policy changes, and clarifying billing practices and memory-care staffing/training will help families make a more informed decision based on the mixed but detailed feedback in these reviews.
