Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed and often polarized: many families and residents report an excellent, warm, activity-rich, upscale community with highly compassionate caregivers, while a significant minority report serious management, staffing, and care-quality problems. The Preserve at Dunedin/Clearwater is repeatedly described as beautiful, spa-like, and well-appointed, with attractive grounds, a pool, and bright, modern interiors. Residents and families commonly praise the range of social offerings — music, bingo, visiting animals, speaker series, arts & crafts, trivia, bus outings and special events — and describe a lively social atmosphere with many opportunities for engagement. Dining receives frequent positive mention: an open dining room, multiple meal choices, and many reviewers calling the food delicious. The community also earns credit for excellent transportation (wheelchair van service and popular Friday bus trips), kosher and faith-friendly options, and administrative staff or community relations staff who help with placement, movers, home health referrals and billing navigation.
A dominant positive theme is the quality of individual caregivers and some on-site leadership. Across dozens of reviews, caregivers are described as compassionate, relationship-focused, and willing to advocate for residents. Several staff members are named and lauded repeatedly (for example, Michelle Lowack in Community Relations/Sales, Rhonda Coates in administration, and Francine in nursing leadership), and many reviewers credit these employees with making the community feel like home and providing detailed, trusted care. In some accounts, the Preserve is praised for proactive medical coordination and medication monitoring, attentive dietary staff, and personalized attention that preserves dignity and independence. Many families explicitly say their loved ones flourished and gained weight or otherwise improved after moving in.
However, there is a consistent cluster of serious concerns that recurs across reviews and shifts the overall picture from uniformly positive to highly mixed. Staffing and management issues are the most frequently raised negatives. Several reviewers allege understaffing (examples include reports of only one nurse and two aides for many residents, or three CNAs on site with no nurse or med tech), which reviewers connect to delayed medication passes, delayed or missed therapy and wound care, and degraded day-to-day assistance. High staff turnover and leadership instability — often linked to ownership/management changes — are repeatedly cited as contributing factors. Multiple reviews say the quality declined after particular administrators left, and a number of reviewers describe corporate oversight as lacking or unprofessional.
Closely related to staffing problems are serious reports about personal care and hygiene lapses. Multiple reviewers recount distressing incidents: residents left soiled for extended periods in public areas, infrequent showers, nails not trimmed, clothing left dirty for days, and stains on apartment floors not cleaned promptly. These reports of neglect are particularly salient and are contrasted sharply with other reviews that describe attentive, dignified personal care. The result is an inconsistent experience: some residents receive outstanding hands-on care, while others — according to reviewers — are neglected, sometimes in ways that compromise dignity and safety.
Safety and administrative conduct concerns appear in several reviews and are especially troubling. Reviewers mention safety hazards and a poorly managed memory care lockdown unit in some accounts, as well as allegedly questionable behavior by regional or corporate staff (a report of a regional director sleeping in an unoccupied room is a cited example). A serious and traumatic incident referenced in reviews is the firing of a director of nursing followed by that person’s suicide; reviewers attribute operational disruption to leadership turmoil, though these are reviewer reports rather than independently verified facts. Allegations that directors or management mishandled resident funds or prioritized revenue (annual rent increases, perceived focus on money) also appear in multiple reviews and contribute to families’ distrust of administration in a subset of accounts.
Memory care and suitability for higher-acuity residents receive mixed feedback. Some families praise the memory-care unit and its staff, saying their loved ones flourished and received attentive, specialized care. Others say the Preserve straddles assisted living and memory care in a way that leaves some residents “in no-man’s-land” — not fully appropriate for independent assisted living nor equipped for nursing-home-level needs. Multiple reviewers advise that the Preserve may not be a good fit for residents requiring extensive nursing or skilled nursing services; those families who needed higher-level medical attention reported delayed therapy and wound care.
Cleanliness and housekeeping are also described inconsistently. Many reviews call the facility "sparkling" and well-maintained, while others cite stained floors, rooms left dirty after move-in, and slow housekeeping response. Similarly, dining and social programs are universally strong selling points in most accounts, but a few reviewers complained about inconsistent food quality or even described the dining experience very negatively; these are minority voices amid generally favorable dining feedback.
Cost and value are recurring considerations. The Preserve is repeatedly described as expensive or "top-notch upscale," and several reviewers question whether the price matches the experience — particularly when they encountered management or care issues. Positive reviewers often argue the fees are justified by the facilities, activities, and several exceptional staff members, while negative reviewers felt the community looked better than the actual level of care they received.
In short, the reviews paint a community of clear strengths — high-quality built environment, robust activity programming, many deeply caring staff members, and strong community relations for move-in and placement support — alongside troubling patterns: episodic understaffing, uneven management, reported favoritism and neglect, hygiene lapses, and troubling administrative incidents. Experiences appear highly variable depending on unit, staff on duty, and recent leadership stability. Prospective residents and families should weigh the many positive testimonials about staff and lifestyle against the specific operational and staffing concerns raised: ask direct questions during tours about current staffing ratios (nurse-to-resident and CNA coverage), turnover rates, how the community handles medication passes and wound care, incident reporting and response times (pendant response), housekeeping standards, and policies for billing and rent increases. Observing mealtime, visiting during activity times and speaking directly with multiple families and unit-level staff can help assess whether the current day-to-day experience aligns with the high praise in many reviews or reflects the serious issues cited by others.
