Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans toward serious concern about the facility’s physical condition and management, while simultaneously acknowledging pockets of strong caregiving. Multiple reviews praise individual staff members and leadership (notably a staff member named Cheryl) for compassionate, trained care and for responding to problems personally. Families report good personal hygiene assistance and some effective medication scheduling adjustments; in some cases staff ensured adequate meal intake leading to weight gain. Communication with families and allowance of visitation during COVID were cited as positive practices. Several reviewers recommend the facility based on the quality of direct care and improvements they observed.
However, the reviews also contain numerous and significant complaints about safety, cleanliness, and the physical environment. Several reviewers described the facility as rundown both inside and out, with filthy windows, strong unpleasant smells, and an overall depressing or “dungeon-like” atmosphere. Specific cleanliness issues include reported roach feces found in drawers and other signs of poor housekeeping. Plumbing problems such as a shower water leak were also reported. These environmental concerns are consistent across multiple summaries and contribute to an impression that the building needs remodeling and better upkeep.
Care-related concerns are mixed and in some cases serious. While some families describe excellent care and attentive staff, other reports highlight troubling incidents: medication changes that resulted in excessive sedation, a resident subject to a Baker Act intervention, unintended weight loss, and residents sleeping through or missing meals. Nighttime understaffing was mentioned, which could exacerbate both safety and care continuity problems. These contrasting reports suggest inconsistency in clinical practices or staffing levels — some shifts or staff members perform well, while others fall short.
Management and regulatory oversight are other clear areas of concern. Reviewers reported bad or unavailable/unresponsive administration, and there are mentions of regulatory infractions and fines. At least one reviewer praised leadership for personally addressing problems, but the presence of regulatory action and complaints about administrator responsiveness indicate systemic management issues that have not been fully resolved.
In summary, New Era Assisted Living appears to provide compassionate and competent direct caregiver interactions in some cases, with staff frequently described as caring and family-like and examples of good communication and problem resolution. At the same time, persistent and specific complaints about the facility’s cleanliness, physical condition, odor, pest evidence, plumbing issues, and inconsistent clinical practices (medication/sedation, meal intake, weight loss) raise serious red flags. Management responsiveness and documented regulatory problems further underscore organizational weaknesses. Prospective residents and families should weigh the evidence of strong personal caregiving against the facility’s environmental, staffing-at-night, and management shortcomings; if considering this facility, they should ask for recent inspection reports, documentation of rectified infractions, and specifics about staffing levels, pest control, and remediation plans for building repairs and cleanliness.
