Overall sentiment: The reviews of Franklin Meadows are highly polarized. A substantial portion of reviews praise the facility for a warm, family-like environment, compassionate and dedicated caregivers, and an active, engaging life-enrichment program. These positive reports frequently note long-tenured staff members, strong unit leadership, and individualized attention—residents described as well cared for, smiling, and engaged. Conversely, a significant number of reviews describe serious lapses in care, safety, cleanliness, and management that raise red flags about consistency and oversight. Taken together, the pattern is one of wide variance: some families experience an exemplary small-home atmosphere while others report neglect or potentially dangerous incidents.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Reviews contain both strong praise for attentive nursing and deeply concerning reports of medical neglect. Positive comments reference nurses and aides who ‘‘go above and beyond,’’ good short-term rehab and memory-care services, and staff who are knowledgeable and dependable. However, several detailed negative incidents are reported: missed medications, delayed responses to call lights, a nurse allegedly refusing care due to insurance, family needing to call an ambulance, and even reports of possible post-surgical neglect and a rapid health decline. These serious clinical complaints indicate inconsistent care practices and possible failures in escalation and physician communication. Multiple reviewers also complained about lack of medical updates and long periods without doctor contact.
Staffing, behavior, and management: One of the clearest themes is staff-related inconsistency. Numerous reviews praise individual staff by name (unit manager Lydia, nurse Gale, Executive Director Jason, admissions director Leti) and describe tight-knit, family-like relationships. Other reviews, however, describe insufficient staffing, inattentive or unprofessional behavior (staff wearing headphones, rudeness on phone), favoritism, and poor managerial oversight (claims that management ‘‘doesn’t exist’’ in the kitchen or follows residents inappropriately). Several reviews allege neglectful behavior—residents left in soiled garments for hours or not checked on—and some describe emotional distress caused by perceived mistreatment. The coexistence of high praise for specific employees alongside serious criticisms of others suggests variability by shift, unit, or tenure of staff.
Safety, theft, and belongings: A recurring negative thread is theft and mismanagement of residents’ belongings. Multiple reviewers reported missing items ranging from rings and high-end walkers to clothing, and complaints about laundry or belongings being lost. These theft allegations, combined with reports of roommate theft and poor inventory/labeling practices, create concerns about resident security and staff accountability. Families should expect to be vigilant about personal items and seek clarity on inventory and storage procedures.
Cleanliness, infection risk, and facility condition: Reviews on cleanliness are mixed and highly polarized. Some accounts praise exceptional cleanliness and housekeeping; others describe sticky floors, filthy conditions, foul odors, dirty coolers, and even blood on clothing. There are specific infection-control concerns (mentions of E. coli risk and staff cleaning with dirty rags). Several reviewers call the building ‘‘outdated’’ or in need of renovation, while others note freshening or makeover efforts. This inconsistency suggests certain areas or units may be well maintained while others are neglected; families should request a tour of the specific unit and ask about infection-control policies and recent housekeeping audits.
Dining and activities: The activities program is one of the most commonly praised aspects—reviews frequently mention an excellent activities department, live music, arts and crafts, and programs that keep residents engaged and smiling. Conversely, dining experiences are mixed: some families report good food and positive meal experiences, while others complain about basic or poor weekend meals and not honoring simple requests (example: water or Pepto not provided, lemonade served instead). Overall, activities are a strength and dining is variable.
Patterns, risk areas, and recommendations: The central pattern across reviews is inconsistency—Franklin Meadows appears capable of providing loving, high-quality care in certain units or shifts but also has recurrent, serious failures in others. Major risk areas highlighted by multiple reviewers are missed medications and medical follow-up, insufficient staffing, theft of personal items, and variable cleanliness/infection control. Families considering this facility should: (1) visit and tour the exact unit and rooms they are considering, (2) meet nursing leadership and ask about staffing ratios and medication administration protocols, (3) inquire about infection-control practices and housekeeping audits, (4) ask for the activities schedule and sample menus (including weekend offerings), and (5) clarify policies on personal belongings, labeling, and incident reporting.
Final assessment: Franklin Meadows receives polarized reviews because of pronounced variability in care and operations. The facility has clear strengths—compassionate caregivers, an active activities program, and some long-established, trusted staff—but also serious and recurring criticisms around clinical management, cleanliness, theft, and staffing. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive reports about staff dedication and engagement against the documented safety and supervision concerns, do focused due diligence on the specific unit and shift, and seek written assurances about care processes before committing placement.
