Overall impression: Reviews for Addington Place of Collinsville are mixed but tilt toward positive when direct-care staff and social aspects are the focus, and negative when management, staffing consistency, and clinical reliability are considered. A large portion of reviewers praise the direct caregivers — aides and many nurses — describing them as kind, energetic, attentive, respectful, and committed to residents’ well-being. Several families report noticeable improvements in residents’ health and mood, weight gain, and successful social engagement. The facility is also frequently described as clean, bright, and well-maintained, with some newer wings and attractive decor. Tours and preadmission assessments are often commended for being thorough and informative, and many reviewers cite a warm, family-like community and active programming as important strengths.
Care quality and safety: Care experiences vary substantially. Positive reports highlight attentive nursing, compassionate aides, proactive safety protocols, and strong follow-through from staff who make residents feel welcomed and cared for. However, there are multiple concerning accounts of missed or incorrect medication administration, delayed pain medication, and failures in personal care (for example, residents left soiled or not checked after falls). A few reviewers described serious incidents — a caregiver allegedly standing by during a fall and management firing that caregiver — and expressed a sense that accountability and follow-up were inconsistent. Several families said promised levels of care (bathing, medication management) were not delivered and that they ended up assuming those responsibilities or incurring extra charges. These opposing patterns indicate that while strong care happens regularly for many residents, reliability and clinical oversight are uneven.
Staffing, professionalism, and management: Staff are consistently mentioned as the biggest differentiator — both positively and negatively. Many reviewers praise staff kindness, professionalism, and helpfulness; others report rude, inexperienced, or lazy caregivers, and frequent turnover among direct-care staff. Understaffing is a recurrent theme: weekend coverage, missed shifts, and times when nurses are described as distracted or talking instead of checking on residents were reported. Management impressions are similarly mixed: some families describe attentive, communicative leadership that follows up promptly and helps plan care and events; other reviews cite unresponsive, uncordial administration, broken promises, and poor communication. The inconsistency in management responsiveness appears tied to the uneven resident experience described across reviews.
Facilities and memory care: The physical facility receives generally positive comments — many note new construction, attractive common areas, large apartments, and a well-kept environment. However, specific concerns were raised about the memory care area: conversion of memory care wings into apartment-style rooms, a second-floor memory wing described as dark and confining, and perceived lack of programming for memory-care residents. A few reviews state that memory-care residents are not sufficiently engaged and report residents sleeping in chairs or being unhappy. There are also isolated but strong negative accounts claiming building deterioration and potential property closing; conversely, other reviewers referenced an orderly closing process where staff helped residents find alternatives, showing some operational support when transitions occur.
Dining and activities: Dining receives mixed but generally positive feedback. Multiple reviewers enjoyed meals, praised the food staff, and noted particular dishes positively (some even mentioned a “Disney chef” as a selling point). At the same time, others found food quality below expectations, cited inconsistencies (cook no-shows), and wanted larger portions. There are also operational complaints such as a fee for in-room meal delivery. Activities are often listed as a strength — with outings, small trips, and varied programming improving residents’ happiness and sociability — but reviewers specifically noted that memory care programming can be lacking.
Costs, location, and value: Cost and location comments vary. Some reviewers consider Addington Place to be good value and conveniently located close to parks, stores, or family; others view it as high-end and near their budget limits or not conveniently located. A few reviewers explicitly said cost was out of reach. Important to note are reports of additional fees and of services being charged or shifted to families when staffing gaps exist.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern across reviews is a strong direct-care culture for many residents paired with operational and management inconsistencies that sometimes compromise safety and reliability. If you are evaluating this community, prioritize an in-person visit and ask specific, documented questions: staffing ratios and weekend coverage, turnover rates for aides and nurses, medication administration and documentation practices, how falls and incidents are investigated and communicated, what services are included versus extra-fee services (e.g., in-room meal delivery, bathing assistance), and the specific design and programming for the memory care area. Request recent staffing schedules, examples of incident follow-up, and references from current resident families. Also observe mealtime, activities in the memory unit, and whether staff are engaged on the floors.
Bottom line: Addington Place of Collinsville shows many strengths — caring direct-care staff, clean and attractive spaces, solid activities, and positive outcomes for many residents — but also clear, repeated concerns around staffing consistency, medication and personal-care reliability, management responsiveness, and memory care environment. Prospective families should weigh the positive resident experiences and strong tour impressions against the reported variability in clinical reliability and operational management, and perform targeted checks on staffing, clinical oversight, and accountability before deciding.
