Overall sentiment in the reviews for St Anthony's Continuing Care is highly mixed, with a strong divide between families and residents who report excellent, compassionate care and those who report serious safety and management failures. Many reviewers praise the frontline caregivers — nurses, CNAs, and therapists — describing them as compassionate, attentive, knowledgeable, and invested in residents’ recovery. Several accounts highlight effective physical and occupational therapy that led to measurable mobility gains, successful post-surgical recoveries (for example after hip replacement), improved blood sugar control, and good wound care. Multiple reviewers specifically noted friendly, approachable staff, a supportive sense of community, increased socialization and improved mood among residents, and long-tenured employees who know residents well. In a subset of reports administration is characterized as responsive and willing to go above and beyond, and interior cleanliness and hygiene are noted positively by many families and residents.
Counterbalancing those positive stories are repeated and serious complaints from other reviewers. A significant number of reviews allege inconsistent care quality and even neglect, including reports of untreated bedsores, infections, sepsis, hospice transitions, and deaths. These are among the most serious themes and are raised alongside accusations that an in-house doctor is unhelpful or ineffective and that some nurses or staff are not attentive or refuse to escalate medical concerns (for example, refusing to call a physician). Several reviewers describe rude, belittling, or otherwise unprofessional interactions with staff. Staffing shortages are a recurring operational issue: CNAs and nurses are reported to be busy or short-staffed, causing delays in basic care; some reviewers also claim poor after-hours communication and delayed reporting from leadership. There are also allegations around staff impairment and unsafe behavior — serious but reported inconsistently — and claims that essential supplies or services (diapers, timely medication responses) were lacking.
Safety and security concerns appear frequently and warrant particular attention. Multiple reviewers report inadequate security controls that allowed residents to sneak out or be exposed to hazards; some cited a permissive smoking policy with frequent outdoor breaks that raised worries about secondhand smoke or possible marijuana exposure. Guardians and family members expressed fear for residents with special needs (for example, someone with MS) and asked whether staff and residents are drug-tested; these concerns underscore an uneven enforcement of policies. There are also allegations of administrative mismanagement: missed paperwork, abrupt evictions or relocations of vulnerable residents (including an Alzheimer’s patient whose relocation was linked by reviewers to trauma and subsequent death), and disputes over staff pay and unlawful firing claims. Some families called publicly for fines or closure, while others explicitly praised the administration’s responsiveness — emphasizing the variability in experiences depending on timing, staff on duty, and individual circumstances.
Facility and dining conditions are another mixed area. Several reviewers report the interior as clean, well-maintained, and pleasant, while others describe a run-down exterior, unmaintained parking lots, bad odors, and patient rooms that do not match online photos. Dining service feedback is split: a number of reviewers appreciated diabetic-friendly meals and helpful dining staff, but many others complained about cold food, inconsistent meal heating, and markedly poor weekend dining service. These dining inconsistencies, combined with staffing shortages and after-hours communication gaps, suggest operational weaknesses that affect day-to-day resident experience.
Patterns and actionable implications: the reviews show that St Anthony's can deliver high-quality, compassionate care — particularly in settings with attentive nurses, skilled therapists, and engaged administration — but there is a nontrivial risk of inconsistent experiences that in some cases escalate to serious adverse outcomes. The variability suggests issues with staffing consistency, shift-to-shift training or supervision, enforcement of safety/security policies, and reliable incident reporting. For prospective residents and families, important questions to ask during a tour would include current staffing ratios and turnover, elopement/security protocols, infection control practices, medication escalation procedures, weekend dining practices, how leadership handles complaints and incident reporting, background checks/drug-testing policies, and specific examples of recent clinical outcomes (e.g., wound care, rehabs completed). For current families, the mixed reviews indicate it may be prudent to monitor care closely, document concerns, escalate promptly to administration and regulators if necessary, and verify that care plans (including diabetic diets, wound care, and mobility therapies) are being followed.
In summary, St Anthony's Continuing Care appears capable of high-quality, empathetic elder care in many cases, with notable strengths in staffing relationships, rehab therapy, and diabetic meal accommodations. However, repeated and serious negative reports about neglect, safety lapses, management failures, dining inconsistencies, and facility maintenance mean that experiences can vary widely. The balance of praise and grave concerns in the reviews suggests that outcomes at this facility depend heavily on which staff are on duty, how leadership responds to issues, and whether families remain actively involved and vigilant about care quality and safety.
