Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive regarding direct care and the lived experience of residents. A large number of reviews emphasize compassionate, resident-focused care: staff are repeatedly described as caring, genuinely concerned for residents’ wellbeing, passionate, and not primarily money-driven. Many reviewers express strong trust in the care provided, gratitude for long-term service, and satisfaction that loved ones are comfortable, safe, and thriving. Multiple comments single out the facility’s proficiency with memory-care needs—dementia and Alzheimer’s care—and specific knowledge about Parkinson’s issues, suggesting appropriate clinical familiarity for residents with neurological conditions.
Staffing shows two contrasting patterns. Numerous reviewers praise the staff as amazing, thorough, and thoughtful, and some explicitly commend management and leadership for being professional, organized, accommodating, and supportive. At the same time, several reviews report understaffing, staff shortages, and concerns about unqualified or insufficiently trained employees. These staffing complaints sometimes overlap with more severe operational issues raised by a minority of reviewers—most notably an allegation that medication was stolen by staff. Other negative reports include misleading information, broken promises, and direct accusations of lying and discrimination by management. This creates an inconsistent picture of administrative reliability: some experiences highlight excellent management while others describe poor management and dishonesty.
Facility-related comments are largely positive, with many reviewers calling the environment clean, homey, small, comfortable, and professional. The facility is described as organized and accommodating, with good services provided that have led to positive overall experiences. However, a few reviews contradict this by reporting unclean or unsanitary conditions, indicating variability in housekeeping or maintenance across time or between different areas/units.
A few reviews note specific resident composition concerns: the community is reported as female-only in some summaries, and one reviewer expressed worry that her father was the only male resident. This points to potential issues of gender balance and the social comfort of male residents who may feel isolated. There are also allegations of discrimination—these are serious claims that several reviewers raised and should be treated as notable concerns.
Notable patterns and contradictions: most of the feedback praises the direct caregiving—staff compassion, tailored attention for memory-related conditions, and the warm, home-like environment. Conversely, operational and managerial issues appear in a subset of reviews: understaffing, alleged theft, misleading or dishonest communication, and reports of unsanitary conditions. The divergence in perspectives suggests variability in experience that could stem from changes over time, differences between shifts or units, or a small number of problematic incidents versus generally positive care.
Bottom line: Flourish Supportive Living receives strong commendations for the quality of hands-on care, dementia/Parkinson’s expertise, and a warm, comfortable atmosphere from many families and long-term clients. However, there are important, recurring concerns about staffing levels, occasional claims of poor management behavior (including dishonesty and discrimination), and at least one alarming allegation about medication security. Prospective residents and families should weigh the consistently positive reports about caregiving against these operational red flags, ask targeted questions about staffing ratios, staff training and background checks, medication handling policies, and the facility’s response to complaints or incidents to get a clearer, up-to-date picture before committing.
