Overall sentiment: Reviews of Brookdale Folsom are strongly mixed but lean positive on staffing, cleanliness of common areas, amenities, dining, and activities while showing recurrent concerns about consistency of clinical care, billing, safety incidents, and unit-level cleanliness. Many reviewers praise the community's atmosphere, the friendliness and compassion of caregivers and dining staff, and a breadth of amenities (movie theater, salon, large dining room, activity rooms, outdoor garden and barbecue areas). At the same time, a substantial number of reviewers report inconsistent experiences—particularly around nursing care, billing practices, and cleanliness of some private units—creating a polarizing overall picture.
Staff and care quality: The single most frequently mentioned strength is the staff. Numerous reviewers describe staff as friendly, attentive, compassionate, and family-like; many cite individual caregivers, nurses, activities directors, admissions staff, and even the administrator as going above and beyond. Several accounts emphasize long-tenured staff and strong rapport between staff and residents. However, these positive accounts are balanced by multiple reports of inconsistent or poor clinical care: examples include rude or uncaring nursing staff, incidents of neglect in memory care, variability between on-call nurses, and med-techs needing additional training. Several reviews describe short-staffing, high turnover, or uneven coverage (notably no 24/7 nurse in some reports), which reviewers connect to lapses in care. Hospice coordination was highlighted positively in some cases, while other families described missed or inadequate medical coordination and problems with outside therapists.
Facilities, cleanliness, and renovations: Many reviewers describe the campus as clean, well-maintained, and undergoing thoughtful renovations. Positive mentions include freshly painted areas, new carpet, remodeled common areas, and contemporary amenities like a movie theater and salon. The dining rooms and shared spaces are frequently described as bright, open, and hotel-like. At the same time, several reviews call out older or cramped units—small studio bedrooms and bathrooms with limited counter/storage space—and note that some buildings still await updates. A minority of reviewers provided strong negative accounts of filthy rooms, dirty bathrooms or refrigerators and odor issues (urine smell), indicating inconsistency between well-maintained common areas and some unit-level housekeeping or housekeeping oversight problems for specific residents.
Dining and meals: Dining is a consistent theme and generally a strength. Many reviewers report superior food quality, varied menus, multiple meal options, and an attractive, clean dining experience, with some noting that the chef will accommodate preferences. Specific positive items include breakfast/lunch/dinner menus, family dining options, and pleasant dining atmospheres (fruit/herb water, neat presentation). However, a smaller subset of reviews describe substandard food or very limited meal choices (one meal per day), and a few residents refused meals. There are also comments about two-hour meal windows and some residents not being invited to meals—suggesting variability in how dining is managed for certain residents.
Activities and memory care: Activities are another frequent positive: reviewers cite a wide variety of programming (music, movies, bingo, church services, exercise, word games, outings), a full-time activities director, and strong social events (happy hours, crafts, garden activities). Memory-care programming is described by many as engaging and improving, with therapy and structured activities noted. Conversely, there are reviews that memory care is geared to early-stage dementia and may not be appropriate for late-stage residents. Some families report insufficient activity engagement for less-mobile or more impaired residents and occasional lack of family involvement in activities.
Management, communication, and operations: Communication and responsiveness receive mixed feedback. Multiple reviewers praise management and front-desk staff for being helpful, responsive, and easy to work with; others report non-responsive executive leadership, slow responses to billing adjustments (one reported a six-month delay), and perceptions of profit-driven practices. Several reviewers note excellent family communication and prompt issue resolution, while others experienced missed telehealth/video conference appointments and poor coordination with outside providers. Transportation services are also inconsistent in reviews: some cite convenience and nearby hospital access (Mercy General across the street) as strong positives, while others mention no weekend transportation or no church transport on Sundays.
Safety, incidents, and serious concerns: While many families feel safe and praise quick emergency responses, there are significant and serious concerns raised in multiple reviews. These include falls, resident-on-resident attacks, infection events leading to hospitalization, and reports of residents being ignored when hungry or thirsty in assisted units. A few reviewers issued strong warnings against placing loved ones at the community due to these safety or care concerns. These reports are not universal but are important patterns that potential residents and families must investigate further during tours and follow-up conversations.
Cost and value: The community is frequently described as offering good value or being less expensive than alternatives, though cost perceptions vary. Some reviewers noted affordability and helpful pricing flexibility and incentives/discounts; others called the community expensive or worried about unexpected or higher-than-expected bills. One reviewer listed a studio price ($3,100) and refundable hold deposit ($500) as an example, but multiple reviews warn families to scrutinize itemized bills and ask detailed questions about care-level fees.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant positive themes are strong, compassionate direct-care staff, robust activities and dining programs, attractive common spaces, and a convenient medical location. The dominant negative themes are variability—particularly in nursing and clinical care, cleanliness at the unit level, billing/administrative transparency, and safety incidents. Because experiences range from "exceptional" to "unacceptable," prospective residents and families should plan thorough, targeted due diligence: visit multiple times and at different hours/shifts, ask to meet nurses and observe med-tech routines, inspect the specific unit for cleanliness and size, seek detail on staffing ratios and 24/7 clinical coverage, review contract terms and itemized charges, inquire about incident history and response protocols, and ask for references from current families with residents in similar care levels (especially memory care).
Conclusion: Brookdale Folsom appears to offer many of the amenities, social programs, and pleasant dining experiences families want, with numerous accounts of empathetic and dedicated staff. However, inconsistent clinical care, administrative/billing problems, safety incidents, and variability in unit-level cleanliness are recurring concerns that prospective residents must evaluate carefully. The community may be an excellent fit for many—especially those prioritizing social engagement, dining, and a welcoming staff—but families with high medical needs or those seeking late-stage dementia care should probe service levels, staffing, and safety protocols in detail before making a decision.
