Overall sentiment across reviews for Cresthaven Senior Living Community is highly polarized: many reviewers describe an active, compassionate, and affordable community with strong social programming and qualified nursing support, while a significant number of other reviews detail severe problems with cleanliness, maintenance, communication, and safety. The result is a mixed reputation where experiences appear to vary dramatically by unit, time period, staff on duty, or possibly after management/ownership changes.
Care quality and clinical oversight: Several reviewers explicitly praise the nursing team and the facility’s ability to provide medical monitoring and dementia care. Comments include well-regulated medication management, competent nursing staff on site, an effective Director of Nursing, and the capability to “age in place.” At the same time, there are numerous and serious allegations of neglect: missed or withheld medications, infrequent bathing, hygiene failures (fecal buildup, urine odor), failure to notify families when residents were sent to the hospital, and at least one account tying poor care to a severe medical outcome. These conflicting reports suggest care quality is inconsistent — good on some shifts/units but unacceptable on others according to multiple reviewers.
Staff and communication: Staff behavior is among the most divided themes. Many reviews emphasize friendly, warm, compassionate, helpful staff who know residents by name, provide regular family communication, and create an inclusive community. Conversely, other reviewers report rude, unresponsive, or uncaring staff and administration, including instances of staff sleeping on the job, refusing to speak with family members, and slow or nonexistent responses to phone calls and maintenance requests. Administrative issues reported include delayed or withheld financial information, overbilling or unexplained charges, coercive signature requests, and threats of eviction. Taken together, staff competence and responsiveness appear to be a key differentiator of resident experience, and inconsistent leadership or turnover is cited as worsening conditions in some reports.
Facility, maintenance and cleanliness: Many reviewers describe attractive features — spacious updated private rooms, gardens, a pool, library/computer access, balconies, and hotel-style accommodations in parts of the campus. Several reviewers also report ongoing renovations and improvements. However, an equal or larger set of reviews recounts serious maintenance and cleanliness problems: mold, termite-damaged doors, leaks with water on kitchen and washroom floors, peeling paint, bed bug and scabies outbreaks, and human waste or foul odors in rooms and common areas. Multiple reviewers specifically mention slow or nonresponsive maintenance and weekly housekeeping that families find insufficient. These opposing impressions point to uneven upkeep across wings or over time, with some sections well-maintained and others suffering from significant deferred maintenance and infection-control failures.
Dining and activities: The community’s social programming is repeatedly cited as a strength: frequent activities, entertainers, crafts, card games, bingo, poker, movie nights, restaurant outings, and regular group outings are mentioned positively. Many residents are described as socially engaged, laughing, dancing, and thriving. Dining receives mixed feedback — numerous positive comments about “wonderful” or “great” food and meals served at set times, while other reviewers call food “terrible” or describe a dining area in need of refreshing. Overall, social life and activities are commonly cited as a reason families and residents like Cresthaven even when other aspects are criticized.
Safety, security and incidents: Several reviews raise safety concerns: roommate safety incidents with no incident reports, injuries from environmental hazards (e.g., unblocked cement steps), reports of police or authorities being involved, and instances of residents being discharged or moved without proper family notification. Theft of personal items and missing clothing mislabeling are recurring complaints. Such reports amplify concerns about supervision, recordkeeping, and incident response protocols.
Management, billing and trust: Reviews repeatedly mention problems with administration in negative accounts — slow or nonexistent responses to family concerns, difficulty obtaining financial or health information, and allegations of overbilling, unexplained monthly charges (e.g., vitamins), and coercive administrative practices. Positive reviews, however, highlight ethical admissions, competent front-desk staff, and an effective admissions experience. The pattern suggests that trust in management varies widely among families and may depend on which staff are involved and on recent leadership stability.
Patterns and context: A prevalent theme is variability: many reviewers have excellent, multi-year experiences and recommend Cresthaven, while others strongly urge families to avoid it, describing deplorable conditions and neglect. Multiple reviews indicate a change in quality over time or after a takeover, with mentions of staff turnover and declining standards. Renovation projects and a praised DON indicate efforts to improve in some areas, but continuing reports of pest outbreaks, mold, and serious communication breakdowns indicate unresolved systemic issues.
Conclusion and practical implications: The reviews portray Cresthaven as a facility with meaningful strengths — strong social programming, engaged residents, on-site medical/nursing capability in some units, and affordability — but also with significant and repeated red flags relating to cleanliness, maintenance, staffing consistency, communication, billing practices, and safety. Because resident experiences appear highly variable, families considering Cresthaven should verify the current condition and staffing of the specific unit or wing, ask directly about pest control, infection control and incident reporting procedures, review recent inspection records, clarify billing and eviction policies in writing, and check references from current families. The divergent reviews make clear that outcomes at this community are heavily dependent on staffing, management responsiveness, and ongoing maintenance — factors that deserve careful, specific scrutiny during any tour or decision-making process.
