Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed: a large number of reviewers describe Hemsley House at University Park (also referenced as Sunrise/University Park in many summaries) as a warm, welcoming, well-staffed, and attractive community with excellent programming and food, while a substantial minority report serious, sometimes alarming lapses in care, safety, and management. The volume of contradictory reports indicates wide variability in the resident experience — for some families the facility delivered exceptional, compassionate, round-the-clock care and peace of mind; for others it fell short in ways that raised safety and dignity concerns.
Staff quality and caregiving is the single most polarized theme. Many reviews praise specific caregivers and leaders by name, describing compassionate, attentive CNAs and nurses, a thorough activities coordinator, and responsive executive staff. Examples include reports of staff meeting families at the hospital, oxygen monitoring and backup, exemplary hospice support, frequent, personalized engagement with residents, and life-enrichment staff who know residents by name. These accounts describe a family-like atmosphere, robust activities, and staff that go the extra mile.
Conversely, a significant number of reviewers report chronic understaffing and its downstream consequences: slow or no responses to call buttons, missed or delayed bathroom assistance, medication mistakes, poor hygiene care (long toenails, soiled bedding, beds soaked in urine), and family members who felt they had to be present 24/7 to ensure basic care. Some reviews make very serious allegations including unreported falls, bruises, sedation overdose, and even a death. There are detailed complaints of rude, dismissive, or unprofessional behavior from specific staff (a head nurse named Tanya is singled out in multiple complaints), and statements that management or corporate leadership had to be escalated to obtain improvements. These reports suggest inconsistent clinical oversight and troubling safety lapses in at least some units or shifts.
Facility and amenities receive generally favorable comments: many reviewers emphasize a beautiful, clean facility with attractive common areas, skylights, pianos, and pleasant smells (cookies/popcorn). Several reviews highlight apartment-style suites (in particular in certain wings), private bathrooms, small kitchenettes, patios or garden access, a hair salon, laundry services, and large TVs with age-appropriate programming. The grounds and views (including Rocky Mountains references) and fenced outdoor spaces are frequently praised. However, there are also notes of maintenance problems in places — rotting outdoor furniture, overgrown landscaping on the memory-care patio, and pockets of deterioration — indicating uneven upkeep across the property.
Dining and activities are another mixed area with many positive reports: outstanding food, restaurant-style dining, a chef who personally engages with residents, customizable meal options, and a broad activity calendar that includes outings, bingo, craft activities, chair yoga, and a daily paper with puzzles. That said, some reviewers called the food bland or limited and reported inconsistent meal delivery (meals not delivered to rooms on some days). Memory-care programming is noted positively by many (some even call it the best Alzheimer’s unit), yet other reviewers felt memory-care staffing and programming were inadequate or not matched to stated claims — a potential sign that quality varies by unit or by time.
Management, communication, and administration are clearly inconsistent in reviewers’ experiences. Several families compliment communication, responsive directors, long-standing administration, and transparent handling of issues. Others report cliquey culture, poor upper management, aggressive sales tactics during admission, billing disputes (including unexpected per-pill fees), and difficulty getting timely attention or corrective action. These divergent reports point to variability in leadership effectiveness or possible recent turnover impacting consistency.
Safety and clinical reliability are the most consequential areas of concern. While some families describe reliable medical oversight (24/7 staff who monitor oxygen and coordinate with hospitals), the opposing set of reviews detail critical incidents: medication errors, delayed responses leading to hygiene issues, unreported falls, and even alleged overdose and death. Complaints about staff smoking in residents’ rooms, residents being yelled at, and staff talking about residents behind their backs further exacerbate safety and dignity concerns for vulnerable individuals.
In summary, reviewers paint a community that can provide exemplary, person-centered care, excellent food, engaging activities, and a warm, home-like environment when operations and staff align — but there are notable and recurrent reports of understaffing, inconsistent care, hygiene failures, management shortcomings, and serious safety incidents. The experience appears highly dependent on staffing levels, specific caregivers and leadership at particular times, and possibly the specific unit or wing (some wings are repeatedly praised while others are criticized). Prospective families should weigh both sets of experiences: verify current staffing ratios and turnover, request written policies on incident reporting and medication management, tour the specific memory unit, ask for references from current families, review billing/contract terms carefully, and monitor care closely after move-in to confirm that the positive attributes reported by many are reliably provided in their loved one’s unit.
