Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed, with clear polarization between reviewers who experienced attentive, communicative care and those who encountered serious lapses in professionalism, hygiene, and consistent caregiving. Several reviewers praised the facility itself — describing it as clean, home-like, and nicely appointed — and highlighted concrete positives such as private bedrooms, daily bathing, hospice availability, and good COVID precautions. Communication features were another recurrent positive: families reported weekly updates with photos, direct phone contact, and an accessible director, which suggests that management has some effective channels for family communication.
However, a strong and recurring negative theme centers on staff behavior and reliability. Multiple reviewers reported unprofessional conduct: staff arguing with each other and with family members, being uncooperative, and appearing distracted by soap operas, phones, or video games during visits. Several complaints specifically allege that the facility did not provide the 24/7 care that had been promised, and that some workers were not performing their duties. These issues introduce safety and quality-of-care concerns. One review mentioned hygiene lapses (used cups for water), and others described residents as sad, helpless, or feeling like they were in a prison — language that signals both emotional neglect and potentially restrictive policies or practices.
Management and policy concerns are another prominent pattern. The facility reportedly changed its name to Banner Ridge Home Care, a detail prospective families should verify to ensure they are evaluating the current operator and policies. Some reviewers praised the director's accessibility and the facility's proactive updates, while others accused the owner or management of being 'sneaky' and of showing favoritism toward a designated power of attorney (POA). There are specific allegations that visitors were locked out or told they could not enter because the POA had instructed otherwise. These reports point to inconsistent enforcement of visitation policies and potential governance issues around POA authority and family access.
Facility layout and suitability for elderly residents are mixed topics in the reviews. Several reviewers called the facility a 'nice' home, yet others raised practical concerns such as an overabundance of furniture that may impede mobility and make the environment less safe or less elder-friendly. Activities and engagement were not broadly documented; the only activity-related mentions tended to be negative (staff watching soap operas) rather than structured programming, which could indicate limited recreational engagement or inconsistent staff-led activities.
In summary, the reviews suggest a facility with solid structural and administrative strengths (clean, home-like environment; private rooms; hospice care; active communication channels) but with uneven execution at the caregiver level. The most critical risks raised are inconsistent staffing behavior, lapses in promised around-the-clock care, hygiene issues, and potential management/POA-driven restrictions on family access. For prospective residents and families, recommended next steps would include: verifying the current ownership/name change and licensing status; directly observing staff-resident interactions during multiple visits and different times of day; asking for concrete staffing schedules and documentation that confirm 24/7 coverage; requesting written policies on visitor access and the facility's process for honoring POA instructions; inspecting common areas for hazards (excess furniture or trip risks); and asking for references from current families who have had recent, ongoing interactions with the facility. Doing this will help reconcile the polarized reports and determine whether the positive aspects consistently outweigh the operational and staffing concerns raised by several reviewers.
