Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed and polarized: many families describe genuinely warm, compassionate caregivers, a newly refreshed facility, and an intimate, home-like environment where residents are known by name — while a substantial number of other reviews describe alarming lapses in cleanliness, clinical coverage, safety, and leadership. The pattern suggests that occupants’ experiences vary widely depending on time period, unit/floor, and who is in charge. Prospective families should regard the facility as one with both notable strengths and clear, recurring risks that merit careful, specific inquiry.
Care quality and clinical coverage: Reviews repeatedly highlight two opposing realities. On the positive side, many reviewers praise attentive CNAs and caregiving staff who provide personalized care, emotional support, and effective move-in transitions. PT/OT services and hospice care are available and are described as valuable by families who used them. Conversely, there are multiple, serious reports of understaffing—most alarmingly the absence of a nurse for weeks or months at a time, Med Techs acting as highest clinical personnel, missed or delayed medications, and emergency call buttons or pendants going unanswered. There are also accounts of resident falls without a prompt response. These clinical and safety-related complaints are among the most consequential and frequent negative themes and indicate potential regulatory and resident-safety risks in some timeframes or units.
Staff and leadership: Staff-level interactions are often cited as the facility’s strength: reviewers frequently name compassionate aides, directors, and sales/staff members who go above and beyond. Several families credit specific leaders (e.g., an Executive Director mentioned positively) with improving communication and the move-in experience. However, management stability and competence are recurring concerns. Multiple reviews report rapid turnover in leadership (four directors in one year referenced), defensive or dictatorial behavior from some directors, and a sense that new management made the community worse in certain respects. This inconsistency appears to correlate with variability in other areas (cleanliness, clinical coverage, activity programming), suggesting that leadership changes materially affect day-to-day operations and resident experience.
Facilities and maintenance: Many reviewers appreciate the recent remodels, apartment-style rooms, bright common spaces, and outdoor courtyard/gardens. When maintained, the facility projects a hotel-like, comfortable environment. At the same time, several very serious maintenance and cleanliness complaints appear repeatedly: roach infestation, long-standing oven/dishwasher failures in the kitchen, flooding and mildew in bedrooms, persistent odors from spoiled deliveries, filthy carpets, and rooms described as unfit for habitation. These are not isolated small complaints—they include biohazard-level concerns (feces/urine-soiled sheets) and structural problems (water intrusion, heating/thermostat failures). The coexistence of both well-kept and hazardous spaces suggests variability between floors/units or changes over time tied to staffing and management.
Dining and food service: Opinions about dining are also mixed. Numerous families praise the food, the chef, guest meal options, and diabetic or varied menus. Yet other reviewers report significant food-safety and quality issues: broken ovens and dishwashers, dirty dishes served to residents, spoiled food deliveries, unpalatable or insufficient meals (e.g., cold canned soup, stale bread), and inconsistent portions. Because dining affects nutrition and infection risk, these conflicting reports are another critical area to verify in person and in records (kitchen maintenance logs, pest control records, food temperature policies).
Activities, social engagement, and transportation: Many reviews describe a lively activity program, music events, gardening, church services, and an active full-time activity coordinator; families value social programming and indoor walking spaces. Conversely, a number of reviewers say activities are limited or infrequent, participation is low, outings are rare (bus reportedly used once in a year), and some shifts/days lack an activity director. This inconsistency again points to variable staffing and programming depending on management and scheduling.
Safety, training, and memory care: Several positive reviews praise memory-care training, certified dementia practitioners, and specialized programming (Virtual Dementia Tour). Still, other reviews explicitly state that memory care was nonexistent or inadequate, which led families to decline placement. Safety concerns are prominent in negative accounts: unanswered call pendants, falls without rapid response, medication lapses, and fears about discharge safety. While some staff are described as well-trained and cross-trained, inconsistent training and frequent turnover are also noted.
Patterns, likely explanations, and recommendations: The dominant pattern is high variability. Many families report excellent, personable staff, clean renovated areas, and good programs under certain leadership and at certain times. Simultaneously, several highly concerning reviews describe systemic failures in cleanliness, nursing coverage, food safety, and leadership responsiveness. These contrasting threads suggest that the facility’s quality may be strongly contingent on leadership stability, staffing levels, and unit-specific maintenance practices rather than reflecting a uniform standard across the entire campus.
For anyone considering Addington Place of Roswell, recommended due diligence includes: touring multiple times (different days and shifts), asking directly about licensed nursing coverage and nurse-to-resident ratios, requesting recent inspection and pest-control records, requesting kitchen maintenance logs and temperature/cleaning policies, inquiring about emergency response times and pendant-call logs, reviewing staff turnover rates and training programs, confirming the status and staffing of memory-care services, and speaking with current resident families about recent trends. The community has clear strengths — compassionate frontline staff, some strong leaders, attractive renovated spaces, and valuable therapy/hospice services — but also recurring, serious concerns that should be validated or ruled out before making placement decisions.
