Overall impression: Reviews for Lacey Creek Supportive Living are strongly mixed, with many reviewers praising the facility’s new construction, cleanliness, attractive grounds, active social life, and several staff members who are described as kind, caring, and responsive. At the same time a concerning subset of reviews report significant operational, clinical, and management failures — most notably repeated medication errors, episodes of missed meals, poor communication from administration, and reports of rude or abrupt nursing behavior. These contrasting themes suggest a facility with excellent physical assets and some very positive staff and programming experiences, but also with inconsistent clinical practices and managerial follow-through that have produced serious negative outcomes for some residents.
Care quality and clinical concerns: One of the most frequent and serious negative themes is medication management. Multiple reviews describe medication errors, missed doses, wrong shots, and dosing mistakes. There are also reports of residents missing meals (including a claim of being unfed for an entire weekend) and instances where staff assistance was lacking. While many reviewers praise compassionate CNAs and excellent nursing coverage in some shifts, other reviewers describe rude or uncaring nurses and staff who are rough or belittling. These clinical and behavioral inconsistencies are particularly important because they directly affect resident safety and well-being. The presence of both highly positive accounts of attentive CNAs and alarming reports of medication mistakes indicates variability in staff training, supervision, or handoff procedures.
Staffing, professionalism, and communication: Staffing and communication issues recur across reviews. Positive comments note friendly, timely communication and teams that go above and beyond; conversely, several reviews specifically call out poor administrative communication (delayed move-in processes, lack of orientation, unresponsiveness to calls), staff distraction (playing on phones), and inadequate overnight/front-desk coverage (front desk being unavailable after 8pm, slow buzzer response). These operational shortcomings have tangible effects — delayed access to amenities, long waits to be let in, and anxiety for prospective or new residents. COVID-related staffing challenges are also mentioned as contributing to limited activities or staffing gaps. The mixed feedback suggests certain shifts or teams are performing well while others are under-resourced or poorly managed.
Facilities, amenities, and maintenance: The building itself receives consistently strong praise: many call it brand-new, beautifully maintained, well-lit, and thoughtfully designed with inviting common areas and outdoor spaces. Amenities cited include a dining room, theater, gym, library, beauty salon, and therapy spaces. Maintenance responsiveness is mentioned positively. However, several reviews point to practical interruptions of amenity access: a broken elevator reportedly lasted nearly two months in one account, resulting in loss of access to lower-level facilities (movie theater, exercise room, library, beauty salon) and widespread frustration. COVID restrictions also limited access to some amenities for a time. There is one serious outlier report of a bedbug infestation and lost personal belongings that even prompted state involvement; this contrasts sharply with the many reports of immaculate grounds and cleanliness and should be treated as a red flag that requires verification and remediation from management.
Dining and activities: Activity programming is generally cited as a strength — reviewers mention a wide range of activities, social events, scavenger hunts, and a sense of engagement among residents. Some reviewers do note that COVID precautions reduced programming at times. Dining reviews are mixed: multiple reviewers say meals look good and meal choices are available, and some report accommodated meals delivered to rooms, while others describe average to below-average food, limited variety, and a desire for fresher or more heart-healthy options. Given the mixed feedback, dining quality may depend on menu cycles or expectations, and there are clear opportunities to improve nutrition variety and consistency.
Cost, value, and financial considerations: Price sensitivity appears in reviews; one reviewer cites a high monthly price (~$5,000) and questions value given operational flaws. Balanced against that are multiple mentions of financial assistance availability, Medicaid acceptance, and spend-down options, making the community accessible to residents with different funding sources. Prospective residents should weigh the physical quality of the facility, available services, and the potential variability in care when evaluating value relative to cost.
Patterns, risk areas, and recommendations: The most notable patterns are (1) strong physical environment and many examples of caring staff and engaging programming; and (2) significant and recurring reports of medication errors, lapses in basic care (missed meals), staff professionalism problems, inconsistent management communication, and at least one severe cleanliness incident. Those second-category problems are high-risk issues that require immediate administrative attention. Prospective residents and families should ask specific, documented questions about medication administration protocols, staff training and supervision, shift staffing levels (including overnight and front desk), incident reporting and resolution (including any pest-control records), elevator maintenance history, and the facility’s plan to prevent recurrence of reported errors. Current residents and families should verify that concerns have been escalated to leadership and reported to regulators when appropriate.
Bottom line: Lacey Creek offers many of the physical attributes and community features that families seek in a supportive living community — attractive, new facilities; active social programming; responsive maintenance; and many reports of warm, attentive staff. However, the presence of multiple, specific reports of medication errors, missed meals, rude nursing interactions, staffing gaps, and at least one severe cleanliness/pest incident creates meaningful safety and quality concerns that need to be validated and addressed before assigning a uniformly positive rating. The facility may be a very good fit for some residents, especially when specific staff and shifts are strong, but families should perform targeted due diligence focused on clinical safety, staffing consistency, and administrative responsiveness prior to moving in.
