Overall sentiment about Oakmont of Folsom is strongly mixed but leans positive for the physical facility, dining, activities, and many frontline caregivers while flagging consistent and serious concerns about Memory Care, care consistency, safety systems, management responsiveness, and cost. Across the many reviews there is recurrent praise for the campus itself: reviewers commonly describe the property as beautiful, modern, and well-maintained with attractive common areas, courtyards, a movie theater, salon, on-site physical therapy, cafe, and restaurant-style dining. Many families praise meal quality (on-site chef, specific favorite dishes were mentioned), plentiful activities (crafts, movie nights, shopping trips, social games, happy hours), and engagement programs that keep residents busy and socially involved. Several reviews specifically call out standout staff members by name (Jacquie, Nicole, Alexis and others) and describe staff who are caring, attentive, professional, and willing to go above and beyond.
Despite these positives, a large cluster of reviews documents stark variability in care quality. Assisted Living is generally described positively — residents are reported to be happy, rooms and common spaces are clean, and staff in assisted living often receive high marks for responsiveness and warmth. In contrast, Memory Care draws disproportionate criticism: reviewers repeatedly mention a poor floor plan for memory residents, door alarms that are disruptive or poorly placed, and potentially dangerous safety practices such as locking wandering residents in rooms. Multiple reviewers report missing or ineffective safety equipment: emergency pull cords are said to be absent, pendant alarms either don’t work or are unresponsive, and motion sensors are described as unreliable. These safety and design concerns are recurring and serious themes that families should investigate directly.
Several reviews describe failures in basic caregiving tasks that undermine confidence: missed bathing, failure to change or manage incontinence supplies, dirty dishes left in resident rooms, dietary supplements not administered, and laundry problems (lost items, color-bleed/bleach incidents, towels not replaced). There are also isolated but severe sanitation incidents reported — for example, one account of feces left on a seat for two days and another noting a diaper on the floor — that point to lapses in daily checks and supervision. Some families reported that residents’ glasses, hearing aids, or dentures were not provided or went missing. These reports are not universal but appear often enough to constitute a notable pattern of inconsistent basic-care practices in some parts of the community.
Staffing and management are another area of mixed feedback. Many reviews applaud long-term, experienced caregivers and teams with strong continuity who know residents’ names and needs; others emphasize high staff turnover, inexperienced or poorly supervised staff, and lapses in training. Management responsiveness is described as inconsistent: positive accounts highlight proactive communication, regular updates, photo reports, and a responsible Director of Nursing, whereas negative accounts say management and corporate staff were slow to respond, sometimes unhelpful, or gave a misleading sales pitch. Phone access and customer service issues appear repeatedly — examples include long hold times, recorded sales messages when calling, difficulty reaching residents by phone, and delays in callbacks. A small number of reviews explicitly note corporate policies that blocked family requests.
Dining and activities are frequently cited as strengths but with caveats. The restaurant-style dining, variety of menu items, and special accommodations (gluten-free, etc.) receive favorable comments and are an important plus for many families. However, reviewers in Memory Care sometimes reported fewer meal choices and less satisfying dining experiences. Activities are plentiful and varied (trips, crafts, movies, music, exercise programs), and many reviews credit staff for tailoring engagement to residents’ abilities. Still, some families wanted more variety or activities better matched to differing cognitive levels.
Cost and availability are recurrent practical considerations. Oakmont of Folsom is repeatedly described as expensive, with some mentioning significant move-in fees (reports include $6,000 and $10,000) and extra charges for services. Several reviewers felt the cost was justified by quality and amenities, while others judged the price too high given the reported inconsistencies in care. The community can be fully booked at times, creating availability challenges for prospective residents.
In summary, Oakmont of Folsom is a high-end, attractively appointed senior community with many strong features: excellent dining (in many reports), broad activity programming, well-kept grounds and amenities, and numerous compassionate, standout staff members. However, the reviews reveal a notable split between positive assisted living experiences and troubling reports in Memory Care and in day-to-day care consistency. Key risk areas identified across multiple reviews include Memory Care layout and safety systems, unreliable emergency pendants/pull-cords, lapses in basic hygiene and laundry practices, occasional serious sanitation incidents, staff turnover and uneven training, and management/communication shortcomings. Prospective residents and families should tour the specific unit they are considering (especially Memory Care), ask detailed questions about safety systems (pull cords, pendant response testing, motion sensor reliability), staffing ratios and turnover, training and supervision practices, laundry and housekeeping protocols, incident reporting and remediation, extra fees, and how management handles family concerns. These targeted inquiries will help determine whether the parts of the community that are praised by many will translate to consistently safe, dependable care for an individual loved one, or whether the inconsistent patterns reported by multiple families are likely to affect their relative.
