Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but centers on a clear pattern: the physical facility and many direct caregivers receive frequent praise, while staffing levels, management stability, and safety/consistency of care are recurring concerns. Multiple reviewers highlight that the facility has been remodeled, is very clean, and has a small, homey feel that many families appreciate. The layout (circular walkways, secure/locked memory care areas, outdoor setup) and the small size are noted as positives for mobility and a comfortable atmosphere. Several reviewers specifically emphasize that staff are caring, attentive, accommodating, and at times go above and beyond for residents, creating a family-like environment that some families would strongly recommend.
Care quality: Experiences vary considerably. Many reviewers describe compassionate, attentive caregivers and improved care compared with previous settings. However, there are also multiple, strong reports of severe understaffing and high turnover that materially affect care consistency. Reliance on agency workers unfamiliar with residents’ routines, and reports of only one caregiver on duty in the evenings, produced accounts of inconsistent care and overwhelmed staff. A few reviews describe very concerning safety lapses (examples given include a resident smoking while on oxygen and another resident drinking alcohol daily), which suggest potential failures in supervision or enforcement of safety protocols. These contradictions mean some families had very positive care experiences while others felt the facility was not suitable for their loved one.
Staff and management: Reviews repeatedly praise frontline caregivers but criticize leadership and administrative presence. Common themes include high staff turnover, an administrator who is rarely present or ineffective, and a lack of consistent leadership. This has led to reports of a chaotic environment, management or ownership-related problems, and an overall sense that operational oversight is inconsistent. Conversely, at least one review noted exemplary regulatory compliance (a zero deficiency survey) and described “incredible commitment” and strong oversight, indicating that performance may fluctuate over time or differ by unit/shift.
Facilities and safety: The physical plant is frequently complimented—remodeled, clean, nicely laid out, secure, and well-suited to memory care and assisted living needs. The exercise-friendly circular layout and outdoor walkways are particular strengths. However, safety concerns raised by reviewers are significant and specific, including smoking on oxygen and alcohol consumption by residents, and underscore the importance of asking about supervision, behavior management, and emergency response procedures during any tour.
Dining and activities: Dining feedback is mixed. Positive notes include ample snacks, holiday meals, flexible meals, and occasional variety. Several reviewers appreciated that staff could be accommodating about meal needs. On the other hand, some families reported poor meal quality—meals that are too tough to chew, inconsistent food quality, and at least one comment implying meals were delivered only twice weekly, which raises questions about meal frequency or staffing patterns for meal service. Activities are reported as regular (painting projects and other organized events), and many reviewers would like more programming; some residents are bedridden and cannot participate, so activities were not rated in those cases.
Medical and transportation services: Reviewers mentioned limited access to doctors and no dedicated transport van, which could complicate medical appointments and outings. One review referenced a TRU PACE transition, indicating some residents may be in the process of changing care models; families should verify medical support and transport arrangements when considering placement.
Value and regulatory note: Several reviewers feel the facility represents very good value and praise the overall feel and size. At least one review called out a zero deficiency regulatory survey and exemplary oversight, which is a strong positive datapoint. Nevertheless, the coexistence of high praise and serious complaints about management/staffing suggests variability in experience—possibly shift- or period-dependent.
Bottom line: Ashley Manor Memory Care appears to have many real strengths—clean, remodeled, secure facilities; a small, homey atmosphere; enthusiastic and compassionate caregivers; and evidence of regulatory compliance from at least one reviewer. At the same time, repeated reports of high turnover, severe understaffing, reliance on agency staff, inconsistent leadership, and concrete safety concerns are significant red flags. Prospective families should weigh the positive accounts of frontline staff and the facility environment against the documented operational weaknesses. Before making a decision, visitors should ask specific questions about staffing ratios (particularly evenings), turnover rates, agency staff usage, management presence, safety protocols (smoking, alcohol, oxygen use), meal planning and frequency, access to medical providers and transportation, and current regulatory or inspection results. If possible, meet multiple staff across shifts and request recent staffing and inspection documentation to understand whether the positive or negative patterns are predominant at the time of placement.
