The reviews for The Cambridge - Assisted Living & Memory Care present a polarized and complex picture. Many families and residents praise the facility’s physical environment: it is frequently described as new, clean, beautifully finished, and thoughtfully designed with inviting common areas, spacious apartments or studios, and safety-focused features (walk-in showers, non-slip flooring, grab bars). Amenities repeatedly called out as strengths include a hair salon, patio, walking path, game and theater rooms, spa and gym/physical therapy areas, and appealing dining spaces. Several reviewers cite quick, effective maintenance responses and appreciate the ability to personalize living spaces. For many, the small-community feel, strong sense of community, and occasions/special events create a home-like atmosphere.
Staffing and caregiving receive strongly mixed reviews. A large number of reviewers describe staff as warm, friendly, compassionate, professional and truly caring — often naming individual caregivers and praising nursing teams, front-line aides, dining staff, and facilities personnel. These reviewers highlight smooth move-ins, accommodating administrative teams, effective communication, and above-and-beyond service. However, an equally substantial set of reviews report severe staffing problems: high attrition, poor staff retention, chronic understaffing, and inconsistent caregiver competency. Several reviewers detailed critical clinical lapses such as missed medications, lack of wound care, unreported bedsores, delayed responses to medical events (including a missed stroke and late oxygen interventions), and even allegations of neglect leading to serious resident harm or death. Importantly, multiple reviews state there was no nurse on site for extended periods, and hospice care was not handled adequately when needed.
Management and leadership are recurring flashpoints. Some families report transparent, responsive leadership and note improvements after leadership change. Others describe frequent management turnover, leadership instability, and a new management company (named Sage) that they say caused chaos. Reported consequences include 30-day eviction notices for residents who required higher levels of care, refusal to refund fees when families moved a loved one out, policy violations, and poor handling of complaints. Several reviewers explicitly accuse management and corporate leadership of prioritizing financial concerns over resident welfare, citing aggressive billing, unexpected extra caregiver charges on top of monthly fees, and corporate-driven decisions that undermined care.
Safety, clinical governance, and procedural consistency are major concerns in a subset of reviews. Multiple accounts mention missing residents, lack of elopement plans, broken security or doors, non-functioning elevators, and incomplete staffing of clinical roles. There are specific, serious allegations: residents left in urine or feces, bedsores unnoticed, medical records release delayed, and inconsistent hospice or oxygen administration. These reports point to systemic failures in supervision, documentation, and clinical oversight in some areas or time periods. Conversely, other reviewers note robust pandemic practices (window visits, screening) and low COVID incidence, indicating that infection-control practices were effective at times.
Dining and activities also produce mixed feedback. Many reviewers applaud the dining program: an experienced chef, meal variety, responsiveness to preferences, and positive mealtime experiences. Several families say meals are above average and that their loved ones engage better nutritionally after arrival. Activities are described as lively and engaging in many reviews (bingo, themed events, outings, walking clubs, gardening, memory-building exercises), but other reviewers say activities and outings were almost non-existent or that activities staff were inexperienced. Memory care specifically is described as secure and effective by some families, while others report dirty conditions, lack of stimulation, and poor security on that floor—again illustrating variability.
Cost, billing transparency, and administrative practices are also frequently discussed. Reported monthly costs (one cited $5,400/month plus additional caregiver fees) and situations involving billing overcharges, refusal to refund, or delayed administrative actions have left families frustrated. Some positive reviewers nevertheless judge the price as fair or good value given the service level. The presence of both high praise for communication and complaints about unresponsiveness suggests that administrative performance may vary by time, team, or unit.
Overall pattern and recommendation: the aggregate reviews depict a facility that, in many cases, provides excellent accommodations, caring staff, strong dining, and meaningful activities, creating a warm, community-focused environment for many residents. At the same time, there are repeated, serious reports of staffing instability, inconsistent clinical care, administrative mismanagement, and safety lapses that have resulted in harm for some residents and major dissatisfaction for families. The experience appears highly variable — some families report outstanding care and leadership, others report neglect, unsafe conditions, and aggressive corporate practices. Prospective residents and families should (1) verify current ownership/management and recent staffing stability, (2) ask for documented clinical policies (nurse coverage, elopement plans, wound-care protocols, hospice coordination), (3) request up-to-date staffing ratios and retention data, (4) review billing policies and refund terms carefully, and (5) tour the specific unit/floor (especially memory care) and speak directly with current families and day-shift caregivers to assess consistency. These steps will help determine whether The Cambridge currently delivers the consistently high standard of care and safety that many reviewers experienced or whether the risks highlighted in negative reviews remain unaddressed.
