Overall sentiment: The reviews paint a strongly negative picture of care and management at Deanna Adult Family Care Home, with multiple reports indicating serious neglect and abuse concerns. While one comment notes that the facility is "nice, clean," the remainder of the feedback focuses on systemic problems with staff behavior, medical oversight, supervision, and dining practices. The dominant tone across the summaries is urgent caution — reviewers express distrust and advise against placing loved ones at this facility.
Care quality and medical issues: Several reviews allege severe failures in medical care. Reported problems include missed nighttime medications and untreated bedsores that reportedly progressed to serious infections (including reports of infection reaching bone). In addition, there are claims of extreme malnutrition and severe weight loss among residents. These issues point to both inadequate monitoring of residents' physical health and failures to respond appropriately when clinical problems arise. The combination of missed medications, untreated skin breakdown, and malnutrition indicates a pattern of neglect with potentially serious health consequences.
Staff behavior and supervision: Reviews specifically call out staff conduct and supervision lapses. Incidents of verbal abuse by staff are mentioned, as is unfriendly or unsupportive management. Caregivers allegedly left residents unsupervised, creating safety risks. These reports suggest problems with staff training, oversight, workplace culture, or staffing levels — any of which can degrade resident safety and dignity. The allegations of verbal abuse and abandonment are particularly concerning because they affect both emotional well-being and physical safety.
Facilities, dining, and policies: On the physical environment, the single positive note is that the location is described as "nice, clean." However, dining practices raised concerns: reviewers report that residents were forced to eat outside regardless of weather. That practice raises questions about resident autonomy, comfort, and the facility's policies for accommodating mobility or medical limitations. A clean building does not appear to translate into appropriate caregiving or respectful, person-centered routines.
Management and overall patterns: Management is described as unfriendly, and reviewers explicitly advise against the facility. The pattern across the summaries is consistent with inadequate clinical oversight, poor staff-resident interactions, and operational decisions that compromise resident well-being (for example, making residents eat outdoors regardless of conditions). These recurring themes — medication errors or omissions, untreated wounds, malnutrition, lack of supervision, and abusive behavior — represent serious regulatory and safety concerns.
Conclusion and caution: In sum, although the facility is reported to be clean, the substantive and repeated allegations of neglect, medical mismanagement, abusive staff behavior, unsupervised residents, and harmful policies outweigh that single positive note. Prospective residents and their families should treat these reviews as red flags: verify licensing and inspection records, request detailed information on staffing ratios and training, seek documentation of medication administration and wound care protocols, and consider visiting unannounced to observe day-to-day care. Given the severity of the reported issues, these reviews collectively amount to a strong recommendation to proceed with extreme caution or to consider alternative care options.
