Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed and polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers describe the staff and leadership in highly positive terms: staff are repeatedly called genuine, caring, compassionate, and mission-driven. Multiple reviewers emphasize that staff know residents by name, provide personalized attention, and treat residents like family — producing feelings among residents that they are valued, safe, and at home. Specific departments (nursing, dietary, housekeeping, therapy, and management) are singled out for going above and beyond in some accounts, and the facility is described by some as having immaculate rooms, a good menu with fast service, and engaging recreational activities (for example, RC plane videos in the rec room). Several reviewers explicitly say the facility is a great place to take a loved one and praise management as amazing and supportive.
Contrasting sharply with those positive impressions are serious and specific complaints from other reviewers that point to significant care and safety concerns. The most severe issues relate to clinical nursing competence and neglect: one reviewer reports an inability of staff to operate a BiPAP (respiratory) machine, leaving it unused for two nights, an equipment shipping problem, and the patient feeling very sick as a result — leading to an explicit warning that the facility is not suitable for serious respiratory care. There are additional allegations of neglect including residents being left on the floor, not helped when requesting assistance, falling from chairs and not being treated properly, and reports of malnutrition and lack of feeding assistance for residents unable to feed themselves. These accounts culminate in some reviewers giving an overall rating of 1/5 and stating they would not recommend the facility.
Facility maintenance and housekeeping feedback is also inconsistent. Some reviewers praise rooms as immaculate and the building as beautiful, while others report disturbing problems: persistent urine and feces smells, vents temporarily masked with dryer sheets, broken beds, missing pillows, and inadequate linen changes. Dining receives praise from multiple reviewers (good menu, fast service, “best around area”), yet the allegation that residents who cannot feed themselves were not given food is a serious concern that conflicts with otherwise positive dietary comments. This pattern suggests variability in execution of care and support tasks across shifts, units, or individual staff members.
Taken together, the reviews reveal two distinct narratives: one of warm, attentive, mission-driven caregiving with good amenities and engagement; and another of lapses in clinical competence, staffing or oversight that produce neglect, safety risks, and hygiene problems. The discrepancies could reflect inconsistent staffing levels, variable staff training or experience, problems during certain shifts, or isolated incidents that contrast with otherwise solid day-to-day operations. Because the negative reports include clinically significant failures (respiratory equipment misuse, falls with lack of assistance, feeding neglect), these concerns should be weighed heavily by prospective residents and families.
In summary, Miller's Merry Manor appears to offer strong emotional support, personalized attention, and good amenities for many residents, with particular praise for compassionate staff, management, therapy, and dining in some reviews. However, there are multiple, detailed reports of serious care failures and neglect that indicate inconsistency and potential safety risks, especially for residents with complex medical needs. Prospective families should seek specific, up-to-date information about staffing ratios, clinical competency (especially respiratory care), incident logs, feeding/assistance protocols, housekeeping schedules, and how management addresses complaints to reconcile these conflicting reports before making placement decisions.
