Overall sentiment: The reviews for Amalia's Residence II are predominantly positive, with many families praising the compassionate, personalized care and the small, home-like environment. Numerous reviewers emphasize that staff are affectionate, attentive, and willing to provide one-on-one care, which many families find reassuring. Several accounts describe excellent communication with family, reliable transportation to appointments, a welcoming atmosphere, and relief that their loved ones are safe and well looked-after. Cleanliness, COVID protocol adherence, and home-cooked meals are recurring positive themes; some reviewers also highlight private rooms with TVs, a friendly dog, and access to church as valuable aspects of the setting.
Care quality and staff: Most reviewers report high-quality, compassionate caregiving. Comments include descriptions of staff who go above and beyond, hand-feed when necessary, and handle combative behaviors effectively. Multiple families explicitly state that the staff are empathetic, outstanding, and that residents make good initial progress under the facility’s care. At the same time, there are important exceptions: at least one review describes a serious neglect incident (resident left in pajamas, not dressed, told to be quiet, left sitting in front of the TV without a remote and undernourished). This creates a pattern of generally strong care with an outlier or small number of reports indicating lapses. Several reviews also note inconsistent staff demeanor—while many staff are described as kind, a few reviewers say some staff have become unfriendly.
Facilities and environment: The home-like, small-group setting is frequently praised. Reviewers consistently describe the residence as clean, orderly, and well-kept. The intimate size and private-room options are highlighted as positives, contributing to a family-style atmosphere that many find comforting. The presence of a friendly dog and easy access to local amenities (mentions of “easy access to Amalia” and church access) add to the homelike, community feel.
Dining and activities: Dining receives strong positive mentions—multiple reviews call out home-cooked or “amazing” food, and staff willingness to hand-feed residents when needed. However, activities are an area of mixed feedback: some reviews mention good activities and engagement, while others explicitly state that no activities were offered. This suggests variability in programming or communication about available activities. Prospective families should ask for specifics about the activity schedule and how engagement is provided, particularly for residents with cognitive impairment.
Management, billing, and administration: Several reviewers appreciate the facility’s communication and management—families report good updates and effective coordination with hospice and family members. Conversely, there are notable administrative concerns: some reviewers report pricing issues (describing the facility as both affordable and expensive in different reviews), being charged unexpectedly, and at least one report of a rent increase connected to hospice involvement. Additional troubling accounts reference marketing or administrative pressure—requests to remove listings and a claim that someone was coerced to use a set number of words—indicating possible tensions around public feedback or reputation management. These items point to the importance of clarifying contract terms, fee schedules, hospice policies, and how complaints or online reviews are handled.
Safety and special-needs care: Several reviews praise the staff’s ability to manage dementia-related behaviors and combative residents, indicating experience with challenging care needs. The facility appears to be able to work with hospice, though one reviewer tied hospice involvement to a rent increase—families should confirm hospice costs and policies. The single report of neglect and undernourishment is a significant safety concern despite being an outlier; it suggests prospective families should verify staffing levels, supervision practices, meal monitoring, and incident-reporting procedures.
Patterns and recommended questions for families: The dominant pattern is positive—personalized, compassionate care in a small, clean, homelike setting with praised food and attentive staff. However, variability exists around activities, staff consistency, and administrative transparency, and at least one serious negative incident was reported. Before choosing Amalia's Residence II, families should ask about staffing ratios, daily activity calendars, meal plans and monitoring for weight loss, policies around hospice and associated fees, how behavioral health and dementia are managed, incident reporting protocols, and how the facility handles feedback and billing disputes. Visiting during mealtime and observing staff-resident interactions can help verify the consistently positive aspects described by most reviewers.
Bottom line: Amalia's Residence II appears to deliver compassionate, individualized care in a clean, home-like environment for many residents, with strong communication and praised dining. However, inconsistent experiences—especially the serious report of neglect and administrative/billing concerns—mean families should perform targeted due diligence on staffing, activities, nutrition monitoring, and contract terms before committing. Overall recommendations from reviewers trend positive, but the mixed reports warrant careful questioning and observation during a visit.
