Brookdale Skyline elicits highly polarized reviews: many reviewers praise the property’s physical assets, amenities, and a number of caring employees, while an equally large group describes systemic problems with caregiving, staffing, safety, and management. The campus itself is consistently described as beautiful and resort-like — dramatic mountain and garden views, large common spaces, theaters, libraries, indoor pools and well-equipped fitness areas, and a broad selection of housing types from cottages to independent and assisted living units, memory care, and skilled nursing. Several reviewers highlight well-appointed apartments, balconies, and roomy layouts. Transportation services, on-site salons, multiple dining venues, and a robust activity schedule (including aquatic therapy, SilverSneakers, arts and crafts, and PALS) are frequent positives. Many reviewers also single out individual staff, therapists, and specific teams who provided excellent, empathetic, and effective care or who made move-ins smooth (several staff members named positively). Some families report very good rehab outcomes, particularly when care was transferred to other facilities (for example, Colonial Columns), and some short stays for rehabilitation or therapy were praised.
Despite the attractive physical plant and rich amenity set, recurring themes of operational dysfunction appear with strong and repeated frequency. Understaffing and high staff turnover are among the most consistent complaints — reviewers describe stretched nursing ratios (reports such as one CNA or nurse managing excessive numbers of residents), delayed or ignored call-button responses, long waits for assistance, and overstressed dining servers. These staffing shortages frequently link to more serious quality-of-care failures: medication errors and missed medications, disagreements over medication timing, inadequate clinical oversight, and in severe cases, neglect (residents reportedly left in soiled diapers, found on floors after falls, or left unattended for extended periods). Multiple reviewers reported hygiene issues such as urine- or feces-soiled bedding or rooms, missing clothing or belongings, and allegations that basic personal care requests were not met promptly. There are also multiple accounts of substandard or inconsistent rehabilitation/clinical care: some therapists were described as competent but families still reported no effective rehab, decline after rehab, or poor clinical decision-making by physicians and nursing staff.
Maintenance, cleanliness, and safety concerns form another cluster of problems. Numerous reports cite long-standing repair delays (leaking toilets, nonworking shower fixtures, HVAC noise and temperature control problems, dangling wires or construction hazards), unfinished apartments at move-in, and cleanliness lapses in resident rooms and bathrooms. Safety issues include construction hazards, removal or inconsistency of security measures (some reviewers appreciated earlier gated entry but later said it was removed), reports of missing or stolen belongings (with alleged police involvement), and confusing campus navigation that can complicate visits and timely staff response. COVID amplified staffing and operational strains — outbreaks and visitor restrictions were mentioned, along with reduced engagement for isolated residents.
Dining and activity experiences are mixed: many reviewers rave about restaurant-style dining, an excellent chef, and delicious meals, while others report cold, dry food, small portions, confusing menus, and rude or overworked dining staff. Billing and administrative problems are another major pattern: families describe opaque extra charges (oxygen concentrators, wheelchair billing), invoices sent to collections in error, overcharges, unreturned refund requests, and slow or nonresponsive finance and executive leadership. Communication failures are widespread — slow callbacks, executive directors not returning calls, mismatches between promised and delivered services, and what some reviewers describe as 'gaslighting' or unaccountable management behavior. Several reviewers also allege profit-driven prioritization over resident welfare, with claims of nickel-and-diming and perceived reduction in care while costs rise.
The reviews suggest highly variable experiences depending on unit, staff on duty, timing, and the individual resident’s needs. While the property offers significant resources that can support a high quality of life (amenities, activities, therapy spaces, and some standout staff), families with higher medical needs — especially those requiring close nursing supervision, consistent medication management, or skilled memory-care support — repeatedly report serious concerns and recommend alternative options. Prospective residents should weigh the facility’s appealing environment and offerings against documented operational issues: conduct in-person visits across multiple days and shifts, ask for current staffing ratios, review incident and maintenance logs, verify billing procedures in writing, speak with families of current residents in the specific neighborhood/unit of interest, and demand clear commitments on move-in readiness and clinical oversight. Finally, consider contingency planning for higher-acuity needs: many reviewers who transferred out report substantially different experiences at other facilities for post-stroke rehab or memory-care support.
