Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed: many families and residents praise the physical campus, the atmosphere, and specific staff members, while a significant portion of reviews raise serious concerns about clinical care, memory‑care services, staffing stability, and management transparency. The facility’s built environment, amenities, and social programming are consistently described as strengths. Multiple reviewers call Clarendale of Mokena a beautiful, modern, resort‑style community with scenic lake and wetland views, various apartment sizes, attractive common areas (movie room, pub/bistro, beauty shop, exercise room, pool, courtyards) and abundant scheduled activities. For many residents the transition has been smooth, staff are described as warm and personable, maintenance and housekeeping are responsive, and the availability of transportation and outings has enhanced quality of life. Several families explicitly credit named staff (e.g., Kathryn, Bridget) and leadership for going above and beyond and making stays or moves positive experiences.
However, a recurring and serious theme is inconsistency—especially around clinical care and memory‑care promises. Numerous reviews allege that marketed memory‑care services were not provided or were insufficient; several families said memory‑care residents were unengaged and not receiving specialized programming despite contractual assurances. Staffing instability is frequently cited: high nurse and caregiver turnover, dependence on agency/temp workers, and frequent shift changes that produce inconsistent caregivers. These staffing issues tie directly to more acute problems reported by multiple reviewers: long waits for assistance (including 30–40 minute waits for bathroom help), nighttime calls to families due to inattentive monitoring, and in several cases alleged medication mismanagement that led to hospitalizations. A number of reviewers allege overmedication or medication errors and that clinical leadership (nursing directors/administration) was slow or ineffective to respond—this was among the most alarming pattern for families considering medical vulnerability.
Dining and housekeeping opinions are polarized. Many people praise the dining options, the variety of menu choices, and recent improvements under new kitchen leadership; others report undercooked or raw meals, long service delays, and expensive à la carte charges (one reviewer noted a $14 ham‑and‑fries entree on a restaurant‑style menu). Cleanliness receives generally positive comments for the property overall, but there are multiple reports of serious lapses—unclean move‑in apartments, soiled sheets, dirty clothes not laundered, and neglected in‑room hygiene items (e.g., dentures not cleaned). Those lapses often appear correlated in reviews with periods of understaffing or reliance on temporary staff.
Management, marketing, and value issues appear repeatedly. Many families felt the sales/marketing pitch and the promotional materials were upbeat, but then experienced a different reality after move‑in—particularly around memory care, staffing guarantees (e.g., 24‑hour nursing), and included services. Some reviewers accuse the community of overpromising to fill beds and of being money‑driven, while others were satisfied that the leadership addressed issues promptly. Cost is a clear concern: Clarendale is described as expensive and sometimes the highest‑priced option in the market, with additional charges that affect perceived value.
Safety and accountability concerns recur and vary in severity. Beyond medication errors and alleged elder abuse, reviewers reported at least one on‑site brawl/unprofessional staff behavior and a lack of clear disaster/tornado planning and resident education about safety procedures. Conversely, many reviews emphasize residents feeling safe, having peace of mind, and receiving compassionate end‑of‑life care. This bifurcation suggests that outcomes depend heavily on current staffing, local leadership, and unit‑level management.
Patterns and practical implications: positive experiences tend to cluster where consistent leadership, attentive direct caregivers, and engaged activity staff are present; negative experiences tend to cluster around memory care and times of high turnover or reliance on agency staff. Given the number and seriousness of negative clinical reports, families with medically complex needs or advanced dementia should exercise caution: ask direct questions about staffing ratios, turnover rates, use of agency staff, medication administration protocols, and documentation of memory‑care programming. Prospective residents should request a meal sample, inspect recent housekeeping records, confirm emergency/disaster plans, ask how hospice/CNA needs are handled (several reviewers noted families had to privately hire CNAs for hospice care), and seek referrals from current families in the same unit.
In summary, Clarendale of Mokena is widely praised for its physical environment, social life, and many individual staff who provide warm, personalized attention; many residents thrive there and families report improved quality of life. At the same time, there is a clear and significant cluster of reviews documenting lapses in memory care, clinical safety, staffing consistency, and management responsiveness—issues that for some families resulted in serious harm or relocation. Experiences vary considerably by unit, time, and which staff/leadership are on shift, so careful, targeted due diligence is essential before committing—particularly for memory care or medically fragile residents.
