The reviews for Oaks at Savannah present a strongly mixed picture: many families and residents praise the facility’s appearance, social life, and a significant subset of staff and services, while others report serious care, safety, and administrative failures. Positive reports describe a newly renovated, attractive campus with hotel-like dining rooms, spacious apartments with kitchenettes and large closets, ample common spaces (bistro, movie room, porch), and a robust activities program that keeps residents engaged. Several reviewers specifically call out an excellent activities director, a creative events calendar (outings, river tours, concerts, happy hours, bible study, jewelry-making), and in-house therapy services. Multiple reviewers also praise individual staff members, med techs, chefs, and housekeeping teams as caring, helpful, and professional. For many residents the facility represents good value and an enjoyable place to live with social opportunities and convenient local access.
However, those positive elements coexist with recurring and sometimes severe negative reports. The most consistent problem across negative reviews is staffing: numerous accounts describe chronic understaffing, high turnover, and a large number of new or inexperienced hourly employees. Reviewers frequently report inconsistent caregiving — with some aides praised as wonderful and others described as unresponsive or “pathetic.” This inconsistency manifests in slow responses to call buttons, delays in bathing or assistance, missed medications or poor medication delivery, and infrequent or inadequate personal hygiene care (including reports of hair rarely washed or routine bathing omitted). Several families specifically reported serious clinical outcomes they attribute to neglect, including dehydration, malnutrition, hospital admissions, and at least one near-fatal fall that required surgery and raised concerns about septic risk. Adult Protective Services and hospital involvement were reported in the most severe cases.
Safety and maintenance concerns appear repeatedly and amplify the risk narratives: reviewers cited failed fall-risk devices, slow call-button responses, missing hallway railings, uncovered outlets, security flaws, and physical deterioration in some areas (plumbing leaks, stained carpets, and an occasional report of a deteriorating facade). Pest problems (cockroaches) and instances of feces or severe hygiene lapses were reported by multiple families — these are particularly alarming when combined with understaffing. While many reviewers describe a clean, fresh-smelling environment, the presence of these serious cleanliness and pest issues in other reports suggests inconsistency in housekeeping and facility maintenance across units or time periods.
Dining and therapy experience are also mixed. Numerous reviewers compliment the food, naming a chef, attractive dining rooms, and excellent meals; others describe institutional, canned, greasy, or high-salt meals with minimal vegetables and poor handling of special diets (soft diets, lack of fruit/juice). Several reviewers noted early improvements after complaints (vegetables added after issue raised), implying responsiveness on a case-by-case basis but unreliable baseline quality. In-house therapy and rehab services receive praise where present and responsive; those positives are often cited as reasons families feel more confident in the facility.
Administrative, billing, and management concerns form a persistent theme across the negative reviews. Families describe billing disputes, hidden or post-move fees (laundry charges, delivery fees, medication charges), rent increases tied to level-of-care reclassification, and inadequate documentation or explanation of charges. Multiple reviewers reported unhelpful or dismissive regional management, unresolved grievances, and personnel/HR problems including claims of a hostile work environment and rumors of embezzlement or mismanagement. These issues often correlate with reports of poor communication — families saying management is hard to contact, slow to respond to incidents, or defensive (negative response to public reviews).
Memory care feedback is especially polarized. Some reviewers say the memory care unit is the right size, well-staffed, and staffed by people who genuinely care; others report neglect, poor interaction with Alzheimer’s patients, lack of outdoor access, and safety concerns. Several reviewers specifically advised against placing loved ones in the memory care unit based on their experiences. This polarization highlights a pattern: experiences vary significantly by unit, staff on duty, and period of stay, suggesting uneven quality control and staff training across the community.
In summary, Oaks at Savannah offers many features families seek — attractive rooms and common areas, engaging activities, therapy services, and a subset of dedicated, compassionate staff. These strengths can and do create highly positive resident experiences. However, the facility also shows systemic weaknesses in staffing stability, care consistency, safety maintenance, hygiene control, and administrative transparency. The most serious and actionable red flags are repeated reports of neglect-related outcomes (dehydration, malnutrition, severe falls), pest and hygiene incidents, slow emergency responses, and unresolved billing/management complaints. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong social and facility amenities against these risks; when considering Oaks at Savannah, ask for up-to-date staffing ratios, incident reporting policies, recent inspection or survey results, examples of how management addressed past safety/hygiene incidents, specifics about medication procedures, and clear, written billing disclosure before committing. Visiting multiple times, meeting direct caregivers on different shifts, and speaking with current resident families in both assisted living and memory care units may help reveal whether a particular unit’s strengths or weaknesses reflect long-term patterns or isolated incidents.
