Overall sentiment: Reviews for Cambridge House of O'Fallon are predominantly positive but show notable and recurring areas of concern. A large portion of reviewers emphasize the friendly, patient and attentive nature of the staff, praise specific administrative team members (notably Scott and Bridget), and describe a pleasant, home-like atmosphere with many activities and social opportunities. At the same time, a smaller but significant subset of reviews report serious problems — including neglect, inadequate care responses to falls, cleanliness failures, and eviction threats — that create important red flags. In short, many residents and families express satisfaction and recommendation, while others report experiences severe enough to warrant caution and further investigation.
Care quality and safety: Multiple reviews praise the caregiving staff as caring, patient and expert, with several families reporting improved health and timely medication administration. Staff are often described as going 'above and beyond' and as an extended family for residents. However, there are contrasting reports of poor care: documented incidents of falls without timely assistance, wounds found in dirty rooms, and claims that staff failed to call for help. These serious allegations, while not the majority, are repeated enough that they represent a pattern of inconsistent care quality. Additionally, nursing strength is called out as variable — some reviews say nurses are attentive and efficient, while others say nursing needs improvement. Prospective families should therefore expect generally good day-to-day care in many cases, but should also verify staffing levels, incident response procedures, and track records for the specific wing or team that would serve their loved one.
Staff and management: Staff receive the most consistent praise across reviews: helpful, friendly, compassionate, and effective during crises (for example, managing lockdowns during the pandemic). Administrative staff are highlighted positively by many; Scott and Bridget are specifically named as helpful with paperwork and communication. Conversely, a recurring negative theme centers on management behavior and billing practices: multiple reviews allege unsympathetic administrators, profit-driven decisions, threats of eviction, and disputes over rent after a resident's death. A few reviewers explicitly describe abusive or deceptive management behavior. This split suggests that while front-line caregiving staff are often strong, administrative practices and policy enforcement (especially around billing, discharge/eviction, and bereavement) can be inconsistent and are a significant concern for some families.
Facilities and activities: The physical environment is frequently praised — many reviewers note a pretty building, well-kept rooms, pleasant sitting rooms, library resources (library on every floor mentioned), in-house beauty/barbershop services, outdoor walking areas, and a family-like atmosphere. The facility’s programmatic offerings are a clear strength: frequent and varied activities (Wii bowling, live music, piano, exercise programs, outings, board games, and social events) are cited repeatedly and contribute to a lively community feel. Some reviewers describe it as safe, peaceful, and ‘feels like home.’ That said, a subset of reviews point to maintenance problems (room smells, cracked walls) and isolated cleanliness failures, indicating variability by wing or unit.
Dining and daily services: Opinions on dining are mixed. Many reviewers appreciate buffet-style dining, meal variety, and the handling of laundry and routine cleaning. Several families say meals are good and balanced and that residents enjoy the food. Conversely, other reviews criticize the food as bland, undercooked, or served cold, and mention a lack of snacks or poor snack management. Several reports also note that meals are not 'home-cooked' and that dietary satisfaction varies. Housekeeping practices also drew mixed comments: while many say the facility is clean and housekeeping is good, some report lack of privacy during med administration and housekeeping and isolated hygiene issues.
Memory care, contracts, and billing concerns: There are specific, repeated concerns related to memory-care services and contractual/billing practices. Some reviewers say services were misrepresented for memory-impaired residents or that staff failed to enforce memory-care measures. Eviction notices and threats, including a post-death demand for rent, appear in multiple reviews and create a pattern of worry around tenant protections and billing/contract terms. These are serious administrative concerns and represent a clear area families should investigate (contracts, respite/transition policies, bereavement billing, and memory-care protocols) before placement.
Patterns and recommendation for interpretation: The overall picture is of a facility with many strengths — especially staff kindness, social and activity programming, and a generally pleasant environment — tempered by significant variability in experience. Positive reviews outnumber negative ones, and many families strongly recommend Cambridge House. However, the negative reports are not simply minor complaints; they include neglect, eviction threats, and hygiene failures that merit serious attention. The pattern suggests that resident experience may depend heavily on the specific wing, staff on duty, or timing.
If evaluating Cambridge House: visitors should tour the specific building/wing, speak directly with caregiving staff and administrators about incident response and memory-care protocols, review contracts and billing policies (especially around move-out and bereavement), ask about staffing levels and turnover, sample meals, and request references from current families in the same wing. Overall, Cambridge House appears to offer a warm, activity-rich, and often well-staffed environment for many residents, but the recurring, substantive negative reports indicate important risks that deserve careful vetting prior to placement.
