Overall impression: Reviews for West Lafayette Assisted Living are highly polarized, with a strong split between reviewers who praise the people, atmosphere, food and activities, and reviewers who report serious safety, hygiene and management failures. Many reviews highlight compassionate direct care staff, meaningful activities and strong dining experiences. At the same time, other reviewers allege severe medication errors, pest infestations, mold, poor communication, and alleged coverups or neglect by management. This contrast suggests significant inconsistency in resident experience, and that quality may vary over time or by unit/staffing levels.
Care quality: A central theme is mixed reports on clinical care. Positive reviews emphasize loving attention from caregivers, experienced aides, staff who go above and beyond, and timely responses to needs. Conversely, multiple reviews raise grave concerns about medication management: late meds, improper dosages, overdoses and at least one reported hospitalization linked to medication errors. Several reviewers explicitly state a lack of nursing staff or supervision, increasing risk for medication mistakes and unsafe care. These are not isolated minor complaints — they are framed as severe safety issues by those reviewers, undermining trust in clinical oversight. Other care-related complaints include being billed for services that were not provided.
Staff and leadership: Staff members receive both praise and criticism. Many reviews call out individual aides and caregivers for compassion, dedication and long tenure (20+ years), and some reviewers single out placement staff and leadership (including a new director and certain staff names) as particularly helpful, organized and communicative. Several accounts describe a warm, home-like culture with laughter, resident-focused programming and staff with a 'servant's heart.' In contrast, other reviews report high turnover, understaffing, employees who feel uncared for, and allegations that management is driven by money rather than resident welfare. Some reviewers praise recent leadership or ownership changes as positive, while others voice distrust or fear of new management — indicating inconsistent perceptions about the administration's direction and reliability.
Facilities, maintenance and cleanliness: Comments about the physical environment are sharply divided. Positive remarks describe a lovely, beautiful facility with large private rooms that meet residents' needs. Negative reports are serious and recurring: bed bug infestations, ants, stink bugs, pervasive mold, filthy conditions, uncared-for building maintenance (e.g., unreplaced water fountain) and claims that management will not/does not fix these problems. These allegations point to potential infection control and sanitation risks; they contrast strongly with other reviews that call the facility comfortable and home-like. The coexistence of these opposing assessments suggests either variability across time/areas of the building or differing expectations among reviewers.
Dining and activities: Dining and programming receive both high praise and criticism. Several reviewers enthusiastically describe from-scratch meals, three meals a day, a named chef (Chef Larry), and excellent dining experiences. Activities are frequently praised — Social Hour Fridays, games, volunteer opportunities, outing programs like 'Joyrides,' well-organized brunches and resident-centered programs that foster social engagement. At the same time, a number of reviews call the food terrible, note the elimination of meal options after a buyout, and say transportation for outings is unreliable (bus reported down). Thus, while many residents appear to enjoy robust programming and good meals, others report a decline or inconsistency in dining quality and transportation services.
Communication and admissions: Experiences with administration and placement vary. Some reviewers commend placement staff (one named individual is praised) for being friendly, informative and helpful, noting useful pre-move-in previews, move-in assistance and apartment setup. However, an equal number of reviewers report poor communication, unkept promises, difficulty reaching the placement contact, and a general sense that administration is unresponsive. Additional concerns include accepting new residents during the virus (flagged by at least one reviewer) and lack of clarity around what services are actually being delivered.
Patterns, concerns and red flags: The most significant recurring red flags are medication mismanagement and sanitation/pest problems — both of which reviewers describe as safety hazards. Staffing shortages and turnover repeatedly appear as root causes cited by reviewers who experienced declines in service. There are strong, conflicting narratives about leadership: some say new directors/owners have turned things around, others accuse management of being secretive or profit-driven and of failing to address serious problems. The combination of staff praise and administrative criticism suggests that direct-care employees often try to compensate for systemic shortcomings.
What prospective residents and families should note: Reviews indicate that individual experiences vary greatly. Before deciding, it would be prudent to verify current conditions and practices directly: ask for documentation of medication administration protocols and nursing coverage, pest-control and sanitation logs, staffing levels and turnover rates, inspection reports, current menus and dining contracts, examples of recent maintenance repairs, and references from current families. Visit multiple times (including a meal and an activity), speak privately with aides and families, and confirm how complaints are handled and escalated. Given the serious nature of some allegations (medication errors, infestations, mold), direct verification and careful monitoring are warranted.
Bottom line: West Lafayette Assisted Living elicits both strong endorsements and serious safety and management complaints. Many reviewers praise compassionate caregivers, engaging activities and very good meals under certain leadership or staffing conditions. However, repeated and serious allegations about medication mismanagement, pest and cleanliness problems, neglected repairs and inconsistent administration are significant and should be investigated and monitored closely by prospective residents and families. The facility appears to have capable and caring frontline staff, but systemic issues reported by several reviewers could present meaningful risks unless addressed by reliable, transparent leadership and consistent operational oversight.
