Overall sentiment is mixed, with a large number of reviewers praising the personal warmth, caring attitude, and attentiveness of direct-care staff and many others reporting increasing concerns about operations and leadership. The most frequent positive themes are consistent: families and visitors repeatedly describe empathetic, patient caregivers; a homelike, cozy atmosphere; good communication with family members; a generally clean facility; private rooms and adequate resident space; regular meal service with three meals and snacks; and meaningful social opportunities for some residents including outings and interactions with a house dog. Multiple reviews specifically note that staff went above and beyond, that move-in experiences were smooth, and that relatives felt peace of mind after placement.
However, a distinct and significant cluster of negative reports points to operational problems that appear to have intensified for some reviewers. Several summaries emphasize a perceived decline in care quality, leadership turnover, and an unstable executive director or management team. Reviewers describe understaffing and poor staff communication, which in turn are linked to canceled or not-held activities, residents being left idle, and caregivers being used primarily as sitters to watch or feed residents rather than deliver active care. There are specific safety-related concerns including multiple falls and emergency room visits mentioned by more than one reviewer. Some families reported management did not adequately address these incidents, and at least one reviewer said the CEO did not resolve raised issues.
Staff professionalism receives both strong praise and pointed criticism across the reviews, indicating inconsistency. Many reviews call the staff “wonderful,” “caring,” and “compassionate,” with frequent notes that staff are friendly, helpful, and communicative. Conversely, several reviews recount unprofessional behaviors (raised voices, hung-up phone calls, staff interrupting tours to eat, or rude responses) and a few single-staff incidents are called out by name. This split suggests variability between shifts, roles, or specific employees rather than a uniform culture. Reviewers also noted a dirty staff break room and lingering odors (dog smell or cigarette/stale smoke) in some areas, while others explicitly stated there were no odors and the facility smelled pleasant.
Activities and social engagement are another area of mixed feedback. Positive accounts describe an engaged activities director, a calendar of outings, an activity bus, and varied programming that helped residents thrive. Negative accounts counter that scheduled activities were not consistently held, the activity schedule was not followed, and residents were left idle—sometimes prompting families to hire private sitters at an added cost (reported $18/hour). Memory care received praise for providing autonomy and secure spaces, with some families noting substantial improvement in residents after transfer to memory care. However, caregivers’ availability for mobility assistance and active engagement in programming was sometimes questioned.
Dining and nutrition receive generally favorable comments overall, with multiple reviewers noting three meals plus snacks and kitchen staff who are responsive to dietary restrictions. A number of comments mention initial meal hiccups that improved over time and a kitchen that smelled delicious even if individual tastes varied. Facility condition comments are also mixed: many reviewers describe the facility as very clean with nice shared spaces and planed aesthetic improvements, while others describe parts of the building as old or dingy and in need of updates.
Taken together, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with strong strengths in frontline caregiving, family communication, and a comforting environment for many residents, but with operational vulnerabilities tied to staffing levels, management stability, and consistent execution of activities and safety practices. The divergent reports—some families highly recommending Brookside Glen and others urging that prospective residents look elsewhere—suggest variability in experience that may depend on timing (recent turnover), unit (memory care versus assisted living), specific staff on duty, and individual resident needs.
If evaluating Brookside Glen, the patterns in these reviews support conducting focused due diligence: ask about current leadership stability and turnover rates, staffing ratios by shift and unit, fall and incident history, how activities are staffed and monitored, policies for family communication and incident follow-up, approaches to odors and housekeeping behind the scenes, and any additional costs families might face for private sitters or extra assistance. Also request to meet the activities director and nursing leadership, review recent inspection or complaint records if available, and tour both assisted living and memory care areas during different times to observe meal service, activities, staffing levels, and resident engagement. This will help reconcile the widely varying experiences reflected in the reviews and determine whether Brookside Glen is a good fit for a particular loved one’s needs.
