The reviews present a highly mixed and polarized picture of Aperion Care Lincoln. Many reviewers report genuinely positive experiences — particularly praising individual caregivers, parts of the nursing staff, and the physical facility — while others report serious deficiencies in care quality, safety, and management responsiveness. This split often appears by timeframe and by specific units: some describe the community as clean, well-maintained, and staffed by compassionate people, while others describe alarming lapses that materially affected residents' health and wellbeing.
Care quality is one of the most common and divisive themes. Positive comments single out the second-floor nurses and several aides and nurses as compassionate and effective, and some residents experienced exceptional care following management changes (an improvement noted by some reviewers). Conversely, multiple reviews report missed or delayed medications, medication administration errors, inadequate bathing (including soap and dead skin left on residents), restorative aides not performing required duties, and overall signs of neglect and patient safety concerns. These care failures are serious and recurrent in the negative reviews and are a primary driver of dissatisfaction and safety concerns.
Staffing and workforce issues are another major pattern. Reviewers frequently point to inconsistency in aides due to high turnover, with some staff described as wonderful and others characterized as unhelpful or even allegedly impaired. There are reports of staff yelling at family members and residents feeling afraid to speak up, which undermines trust. Several reviewers explicitly call management a "joke" and say administration and activities are a "train wreck," while some staff say it is a great place to work — indicating a fractured internal culture where experiences vary greatly by role, shift, or unit.
Facilities and maintenance receive generally positive remarks about cleanliness and upkeep — the building itself is often described as beautiful and well-maintained, and maintenance staff receive praise for getting the job done. However, cost-driven maintenance decisions create notable negative impacts: one reviewer reports that an air chiller took seven weeks to repair due to cost concerns, and that delay negatively affected resident health. This underscores a tension between a well-kept appearance and operational choices that may prioritize budget over resident wellbeing.
Dining and activities are another area of contention. Several reviewers describe food quality as unacceptable: meat prepared inedibly (ground up), tiny and cold dinner portions (examples include two pieces of bread, cold cheese, small slaw, and an inch-square cake), and an overall decline in meal quality coinciding with price increases and staffing changes. Activities and administrative coordination are called out as poor by multiple reviewers, and some families felt promised resolutions were not followed through by corporate or local leadership.
Management, communication, and corporate responsiveness are recurring complaints. Some reviews praise active management (Aperion) and note an improvement in ratings from one to four stars, with stronger oversight producing markedly better experiences for some residents. Other reviewers, however, report broken promises from administrators, difficulty contacting corporate, and a lack of accountability when serious issues (medication errors, missing belongings, delayed repairs) were raised. This inconsistent responsiveness contributes to widely divergent resident and family experiences.
Overall sentiment is highly split: some reviewers strongly recommend the community and highlight exceptional staff and facility conditions, while others strongly advise against it due to safety, care, and management failures. Notable patterns include variability by floor and staff member, a reported improvement in some periods tied to management efforts, and recurring serious concerns about medication administration, personal care, missing belongings, and food quality. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive reports of dedicated caregivers and a well-kept facility against repeated, specific allegations of neglect, safety lapses, inconsistent staffing, and unreliable corporate follow-through. Where possible, visitors should seek recent, unit-specific feedback, ask for details about medication administration processes, restorative care coverage, and recent maintenance histories, and observe mealtimes and staff-resident interactions to help evaluate current conditions.
