Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial number of reviewers describe Pleasant Care Home as a warm, home-like facility with loving owners, attentive staff, and positive health outcomes for some residents, while other reviewers report serious management and care concerns including abusive behavior, medical neglect, and restrictive rules. The reviews cluster into two broad experiences — one where families found a safe, clean, pet-friendly environment with caring staff and improved resident health, and another where families felt mistreated, ignored, and unsafe.
Care quality and staff behavior show the most significant divergence. Multiple reviewers name specific staff (Lina and Nelson) and describe them as loving, patient, and attentive; these accounts include examples of residents improving (less medication, better physical condition, dementia stabilization) and families feeling like part of a family. These positive reviews emphasize individualized attention, a warm Christian-family atmosphere, and staff who provide peace of mind. Conversely, several reports describe yelling caregivers, an administrator who became abusive after an initial positive impression, threats of eviction, and suspected extortion. Some reviewers directly attribute declines in health to staff dismissing medical concerns, with at least one report of hospitalization and another of ulcers blamed on staff neglect. This mixed pattern suggests variability in staff performance, management behavior, or possible changes in leadership or staffing over time.
Facilities and environment are also described in contrasting terms. Many reviewers praise the home-like, country setting: clean rooms that are not sterile, comfortable porch seating, flower pots, a beautiful deck and surroundings, and a generally pleasant outdoor environment. The home is consistently described as pet-friendly, and several reviewers appreciate on-site church services and a non-institutional feel. On the other hand, criticisms include overcrowding at full capacity, insufficient restroom availability, and at least one report of porta-potties being used in rooms. These negative facility comments raise practical safety and dignity concerns that contradict the otherwise warm descriptions.
Dining and activities produce mixed reactions. Several families praise home-cooked, healthy meals and note improvement in appetite and nutrition, while others complain about meal quality and variety — specifically citing excessive vegetables and fruit, lack of fresh or substantial food, and an alleged Adventist policy resulting in no meat. Activity offerings are similarly split: some reviewers note church services and community TVs, while others describe a lack of outings, limited entertainment options (only two community TVs), and strict rules that limit in-room electronics and personal devices. Restrictions such as no cell phones, no TVs in private rooms, and no computers or iPads are repeatedly mentioned and contribute to commenters characterizing the atmosphere as overly restrictive or like a custodial environment.
Management, policies, and communication are recurring themes of concern. A pattern emerges in which some families feel welcomed and supported by management and owners, while others encountered an administrator who became abusive, prohibited visits, screamed at family members, threatened eviction, or enacted rent increases perceived as extortion. There are also reports that staff have restricted visits or blocked access to patios and interfered with caretaker communication. A specific operational concern raised by multiple reviewers is mishandling of medical needs — refusal to arrange or follow through with medical appointments and dismissing caregiver concerns — which in at least one instance was linked to hospitalization and in another to deterioration requiring the resident to be removed from the facility after six months.
In summary, Pleasant Care Home elicits strong, divergent impressions. Positive reviewers highlight a deeply personal, family-like environment with caring staff, pet-friendly policies, clean accommodations, and meaningful improvements in resident health. Negative reviewers document troubling management practices, inconsistent or poor medical oversight, punitive or restrictive visitation and electronic-device policies, overcrowding, and some undignified facility conditions. Prospective families should weigh these divergent experiences carefully: visit during different times of day, speak directly with multiple staff members and current residents/families, ask about medical appointment protocols, staffing ratios, occupancy levels and restroom arrangements, dietary policies (including whether meat is served), visitation and electronics policies, and documented responses to complaints. Verifying references (including hospital or discharge planners who referred residents) and observing staff-resident interactions in person will help determine which pattern — the caring, home-like experience or the problematic management/medical oversight — is more representative at the current time.
