The reviews for The Crossroads of Flowery Branch present a highly mixed and polarized picture, with a persistent pattern of strong praise for individual caregivers and therapy teams alongside numerous and serious complaints about facility conditions, management, safety, and basic care practices. Many reviewers highlight that certain therapists (physical, occupational and speech) produced excellent rehabilitation outcomes, and several families describe nurses and aides who were compassionate, attentive, and went above and beyond. Multiple accounts speak to a social, home-like atmosphere for some residents: bright, buffet-style dining rooms with flowers, a fish tank and birds, volunteers, church services and activities that residents enjoyed. A number of reviews also note improvements under new ownership or a responsive administrator who is actively trying to make the facility better.
Counterbalancing those positives are frequent, severe and recurring operational and safety concerns. A dominant theme is pest infestation and poor hygiene: numerous reviewers report cockroaches and roach eggs in food, rodents and mice in the building and kitchen, and dead pests in resident areas. Related to sanitation are many complaints about an unsanitary kitchen, inadequate food preparation equipment, and consistently poor meals — examples range from dry, overcooked sandwiches and mismatched trays to mechanical-soft diets being handled incorrectly and reports of contaminated or inedible food. Several reviewers described shocking lapses such as roach eggs in food and coffee-related burns with inadequate follow-up.
Staffing and care quality are described as highly inconsistent. While some staff members and shifts receive praise for kindness and competence, other reviewers report rude, abusive or disengaged CNAs and nurses, with accounts of residents being left in soiled clothing or sitting in urine for extended periods. Many reviews cite long call-light response times, third-shift neglect, and understaffing severe enough to cause delayed assistance after falls, delayed or refused emergency calls to 911, missed vital signs, and in at least a few reviews, allegations that serious medical events went unnoticed or unaddressed. Medication management issues are commonly mentioned: delays, missing medications, refusal to administer shots, and family members forced to bring medications from home.
Facility maintenance and safety hazards are another consistent concern. Reviewers report an aged, rundown building with water-damaged ceilings, roof leaks, mold and mildew, peeling paint, crumbling parking lots and potholes, and unsafe or broken equipment (including bed rails, outdated call systems and exposed wiring). Specific outside hazards were noted — for example, a dangerously dead oak tree that reviewers feared could fall. Complaints also extend to inconsistent uniforms/name badges, laundry problems, lost clothing, and poor phone responsiveness from administration (full voicemail, missed messages). Several reviews mention security issues — locked doors that impeded visitors or deliveries — and temperature control problems like very hot hallways.
Safety-critical allegations recur: delayed emergency care, residents left unattended after falls for hours, suspected over-sedation or inappropriate medication use, theft of personal belongings, and at least one report of a resident’s severe injury (broken nose) tied to alleged staff assault. Several reviewers called for investigations, regulatory action, or closure based on these claims. At the same time, there are countervailing reports of residents thriving — recovering from strokes, improving mobility and speech, and being discharged home after effective rehab. This divergence suggests a facility with pockets of strong clinical care and dedicated employees, but systemic operational failures that place some residents at considerable risk.
Management and leadership polarize opinion in the reviews. Some reviewers praise a new executive director or administrators who are responsive, hands-on and committed to improvements; others blame leadership for understaffing, lack of supplies, dismissiveness, or even active obstruction of family concerns. Staff turnover and frequent administrative changes were repeatedly cited as contributing to inconsistent care. Several reviewers said conditions had improved under new ownership, while many others reported ongoing, unresolved problems and alleged abuses that point to deeper organizational issues.
In summary, The Crossroads of Flowery Branch appears to deliver widely variable experiences. Strengths include competent therapy services, some caring and dedicated staff members, a few clean and pleasant common spaces, and active efforts by certain leaders to improve the facility. However, pervasive and serious concerns — pest infestations, food safety problems, staffing shortages, reports of neglect and abuse, dangerous maintenance issues, medication errors, and inconsistent management — are repeatedly described and represent significant risk factors. Families considering this facility should weigh the positive reports of individualized compassionate care and successful rehab against the frequency and severity of operational, safety and hygiene complaints. Prospective residents or families should conduct in-person inspections (including kitchen and resident rooms), ask about pest control and infection protocols, verify leadership stability and staff-to-resident ratios, and review recent state inspection reports before making a placement decision.
