Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized, with a mixture of strong praise for certain caregivers and facility features alongside serious allegations of neglect, medical errors, and deceptive business practices. Many families report genuinely compassionate, attentive caregivers who create a family-like atmosphere, meaningful social engagement, pleasant common spaces, good meals, and well-kept rooms and grounds. At the same time, a substantial portion of reviews describe systemic problems that have led to medical harm, rapid resident decline, and deep family distress.
Care quality and safety is the most critical and contested theme. Positive reviews emphasize attentive aides, calm residents, strong staff-resident bonding, and staff who go above and beyond. Negative reports, however, detail medication mistakes (delays, missed doses, overmedication and sedation), neglect (failure to shower, leave residents soiled, unobserved falls), dehydration and repeated urinary or respiratory infections leading to multiple ER visits, and in some cases rapid health decline after admission. There are multiple accounts alleging that residents were sedated into chairs, overmedicated early in admission, or that dementia-related needs were mishandled. These adverse clinical outcomes are described alongside claims of staff prioritizing payments over care, and families reporting that promised medical or rehab support (such as an on-site doctor or condition-specific rehabilitation) was not provided.
Staffing and management issues recur throughout the reviews. Positive notes about "phenomenal" and "caring" staff coexist with many reports of high turnover, inexperienced or undertrained aides and CNAs, and inconsistency in who is on duty. Several reviews accuse management of being sales-oriented, misleading in marketing, and defensive or dishonest when problems are raised. Multiple families describe deceptive advertising—particularly around "all-inclusive" services and "aging in place" guarantees—and say that important services (nursing oversight, timely referrals, coordination with physicians and rehab) were either absent or only available at extra cost. A pattern of declining quality reported since 2023 and references to new ownership but the same management suggest that organizational change has not resolved these problems for some families.
Facility, amenities, and activities are a mixed picture. Many reviewers praise the facility's cleanliness, pleasant smell, large rooms, indoor garden, outdoor areas, and variety of activities and events. There are specific compliments for food quality and variety, an on-site hairdresser, and an extensive activity calendar with options like music, games, and crafts. Conversely, other reviews claim activity offerings are minimal (sometimes described as only TV or one activity per day), and allege events advertised or promised are empty. Some families note restricted access (locked refrigerators, controlled visitor policies) and express concern about a façade of pleasant decor that masks care deficits.
Communication, transportation, and medical coordination present additional concerns. Several reviews say families experienced poor communication—phone numbers changed without notice, referrals were delayed or not scheduled, and management failed to notify families of changes. Transportation limitations (only two days per week), use of maintenance staff to transport residents, and a nurse available only for extra fees are specific operational issues cited. Reviews also describe weak continuity between rehab, the assisted living facility, and outside physicians, contributing to poorer outcomes for residents needing condition-specific or ongoing clinical care.
Patterns and risk factors: the reviews point to a clustering of serious complaints around residents with higher clinical needs (dementia, diabetes, mobility issues, medical devices). These residents appear most vulnerable to the alleged medication errors, dehydration, infections, and inadequate supervision. Conversely, residents with lower-acuity needs who are socially engaged may experience the facility more positively. The volume and severity of negative reports—particularly those alleging deceptive marketing, delayed or missed medications, neglect, and hospital transports—create a substantive risk signal that families should weigh carefully, especially for loved ones with significant medical or memory-care needs.
In summary, Best Care Senior Living at Lecanto elicits starkly divergent experiences. Strengths frequently cited are compassionate direct-care staff (though not uniformly), clean and attractive facilities, good food, and active social programming that fosters a family-like community. The most serious weaknesses involve alleged deceptive marketing, inconsistent or inadequate clinical care, medication and hydration failures, high staff turnover, and poor management transparency and communication. Prospective families should verify specific services in writing (nursing coverage, medication management, condition-specific rehab, transportation), ask detailed questions about staffing consistency and training, and closely monitor initial weeks after move-in. The reviews indicate potential for excellent day-to-day personal care and community life for some residents, but also documented reports of harmful clinical lapses for others—making careful, individualized vetting essential.
