Overall sentiment in the reviews for Larkshaven Assisted Living is mixed and strongly polarized. Several reviewers describe the facility as a small, pleasant, home-like group residence with bright, quiet rooms and a nice yard and garden. These reviewers highlight a cheerful staff and a supportive administrator, describing the environment as comfortable, casual, and privately owned. Some comments explicitly praise the quality of care — calling it "excellent care" and noting staff who do a "wonderful job." This set of observations suggests that for some residents and families, Larkshaven provides a cozy, low-density assisted living experience that can work well for short stays or particular care needs.
Counterbalancing those positive impressions are multiple serious concerns raised by other reviewers. The negative reports include alleged caregiver refusal to provide basic needs such as water and forced early wakeups on Sundays. More alarming are safety-related allegations: a report that rushing staff caused a resident with multiple sclerosis to be dropped, and claims of improper or unsafe medication administration. Such accounts raise important red flags about clinical practices, staffing procedures, and resident safety. Several reviewers express a broader lack of trust in management, with direct allegations against owners/management and strong recommendations to avoid the facility.
Operational and logistical issues are another consistent theme. Reviewers report staff cars blocking a road or access point, poor responsiveness by phone, and instances where staff being in meetings delayed responses to calls. There are also statements that the building was left unlocked, which reviewers describe as compromising resident safety. These concerns collectively point to weaknesses in on-the-ground operational controls — from parking and site access to communication protocols and building security.
The pattern that emerges is one of a small, attractive group-home environment that can offer attentive, pleasant care in some cases, but which also has reported episodic failures with potentially serious consequences. Positive comments tend to emphasize the physical environment (bright, quiet, nice yard) and the demeanor of certain staff members or the administrator. Negative comments focus more on safety, medication handling, security, and management trustworthiness. There is a notable absence of detailed mentions about dining, activities programming, or long-term clinical oversight in the given reviews, so those areas remain unclear based on the available summaries.
Given the mix of praise and serious allegations, prospective residents and families should approach Larkshaven with caution. The reviews suggest it is especially important to verify current staffing levels, medication administration protocols, incident history, and any corrective actions taken by management. Specific items to check in person or by conversation with the facility and regulators include: examples of staff training and certification, medication administration procedures and audits, lock/security policies, how the facility handles family communications and after-hours calls, parking/visitor access plans, and the facility’s records with state licensing or inspection agencies. Request references from current families and ask management to address the specific negative claims documented in reviews.
In summary, Larkshaven appears to offer a pleasant, small-scale assisted living environment that some residents and families appreciate, but it also has multiple reviews alleging serious safety and management problems. Those conflicting signals make careful, on-site due diligence essential before making placement decisions.
