Overall sentiment is mixed but centers on two consistent and opposing narratives: (1) a new, clean, well-appointed memory-care community with many families praising highly compassionate, dementia-trained staff, robust programming, and an attractive physical environment; and (2) serious, specific allegations of neglect and clinical failure resulting in pressure ulcers, infections, dehydration, injury, and decline in at least some residents. Both themes appear repeatedly and are significant for anyone evaluating care at Liana of Venice.
Facility and physical environment: Multiple reviews emphasize that Liana of Venice is a new or recently built facility that is immaculate, warm, and homey in decor. Commenters note wide hallways, LED lighting, absence of odors, uncluttered corridors, large rooms, and clean common spaces. There is praise for the dining area and music/activities in the lobby; a talented head chef is mentioned by several reviewers. On the downside, several reviewers point out a lack of green outdoor space — a concrete-slab courtyard with few or no trees — which detracts from outdoor accessibility and ambiance for some families.
Staffing, care quality and clinical oversight: A strong, recurring positive theme is a caring, compassionate, dementia-knowledgeable staff that often greets residents by name, engages them, and provides a sense of relief to families. Multiple reviewers cite low staff turnover, hands-on involvement from executive directors and directors of nursing, and the presence of in-house doctors and a nurse practitioner. These families describe respectful, professional caregiving and active staff participation in residents' lives. Conversely, a subset of reviews describes severe clinical lapses: residents developing stage 2–3 pressure sores, pneumonia, dehydration, collapsed conditions soon after admission, broken ribs, swollen extremities, rashes, irregular heart rhythms, inability to walk, emergency room visits, and a fall incident. These reports allege a distinct deterioration from the resident’s condition at admission and raise concerns about wound care, monitoring, staffing levels, and medication practices (including an allegation about a drug with an FDA black-box warning being used in dementia patients). These are not isolated minor complaints but serious adverse outcomes that families report as tied to neglect or inadequate care.
Activities, engagement and social programming: Many reviewers praise an extensive activities program: scheduled entertainment (including Friday events), pet visits, outdoor entertainment, cards, large-screen group viewing, ice cream socials, and other stimulating offerings. These activities are frequently credited with improving residents’ quality of life and producing visible joy. Some families mention thoughtful programming and good planning by activity staff. A few reviews, however, note limited weekend programming or describe activities as insufficient for certain residents.
Dining and support services: Dining impressions are mixed. Several reviews commend a great head chef and excellent meals, while a few others call the food mediocre. A positive operational detail mentioned is staff help in procuring medications at the best price for families. There are also notes about active social media engagement (many photos on Facebook) and positive first impressions during tours and admissions for some families.
Management, communication and admissions practices: Reports on management are mixed. Numerous reviews praise prompt communication, an easy admission process, and administration that goes above and beyond. On the other hand, some reviewers accuse leadership of focusing on finances over care, of being persuasive during marketing visits, and of imposing visitation restrictions (not wanting families to visit during the first two weeks). There are also conflicting reports about staff turnover—some say turnover is low and staff are stable, while others claim high turnover and insufficient staffing. These contradictions suggest variability in experience that may reflect differences in timing, specific staff members, or unit-level management.
Patterns, risks and recommended due diligence: The most important pattern is the coexistence of high satisfaction reports alongside accounts of severe clinical problems. The positive reviews point to a facility that, when staffed and managed as described, delivers strong memory-care support in a modern, clean environment with engaging programming. The negative reports, however, identify grave safety and quality-of-care risks that should not be overlooked: pressure sores, infection, dehydration, injury, and use of potentially inappropriate medications. Given this mix, prospective families should pursue careful due diligence: ask about current staffing ratios, turnover rates, wound-care protocols, infection-control practices, handling of acute changes in condition, medication review policies (especially for antipsychotics or medications with black-box warnings), visitation policies, and recent state inspection or complaint records. Request to speak with current families, observe multiple shifts if possible, and check how management addresses and documents adverse events.
In summary, Liana of Venice receives many strong endorsements for its physical environment, compassionate dementia-trained staff, and lively activities program, but there are also very serious allegations of lapses in clinical care that have led to significant harm in several reported cases. These divergent experiences indicate that quality may vary by unit, timing, or staff coverage. Families should weigh the positive aspects against the reported risks and confirm current clinical safeguards and oversight before making placement decisions.
