Overall sentiment across the reviews is largely positive, with many families praising the staff, the facility, and the quality of daily care. Reviewers repeatedly highlight compassionate caregivers, respectful nurses, and a management team that is attentive and responsive to families. Multiple accounts emphasize that staff often go above and beyond, provide comforting end-of-life support, honor residents, and maintain transparent communication — including photo and video updates for memory care families. The facility itself is described as clean, neat, and well maintained, with an attractive building and dining area. Food and dining receive consistent positive mentions, including specific praise for desserts and overall diet quality.
Care quality is a dominant positive theme. Numerous reviews mention individualized attention, regular personal care (bathing and dressing), and staff who create positive emotional experiences (making residents laugh, honoring residents at end of life). Memory care is singled out for strong practices: families report timely updates with photos/videos and compassionate handling during critical moments. Activity offerings such as games, walks, and social dining are noted as contributing to resident engagement and a generally thriving atmosphere.
Management and communication are also frequently praised. Many reviewers describe management as attentive and detail-oriented, responsive to family concerns, and open to outside advocates. Transparency and a willingness to engage with families appear to be strengths, and several reviewers report positive visiting experiences that support family involvement. These elements contribute to a perception of a facility that values both resident comfort and family partnership.
However, there are some notable and serious negative concerns that temper the overwhelmingly positive picture. A few reviews report visitation restrictions that caused distress, and at least one review describes rude behavior from an owner family member (specifically the owner's daughter). More concerning are reports of delays in basic care and allegations of insensitive or 'heartless' behavior that reportedly affected a resident's final days; one reviewer specifically stated the facility 'ruined final days' and would not recommend them. There is also a report about an insensitive approach to incontinence management (being told to use Depends) that may reflect a lapse in dignity-based care for some residents. These negative accounts indicate inconsistency in how policies and care are applied.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility with many strong attributes — compassionate staff, clean and pleasant environment, good food, active programming, and generally effective communication — but with occasional, serious lapses that have had profound impacts on at least some families. The pattern suggests high-quality care is common, but not uniformly guaranteed. Families considering DeSano Place Village should weigh the positive reports heavily but also ask targeted questions about visitation policies, staffing levels and turnover, protocols for timely basic care and dignity in personal care, and how management handles complaints and end-of-life needs. Observing staff-resident interactions, requesting references from current families in similar care wings (assisted living vs memory care), and clarifying escalation and advocacy procedures can help prospective families confirm whether their expectations for consistent, compassionate care will be met.
