Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but polarized: many reviewers praise Santa Marta for its attractive campus, warm and compassionate staff, robust hospitality in independent living, and excellent therapy and maintenance services; others report serious clinical and operational failures in assisted living and memory care that raise safety, training, and management concerns. The facility's physical plant, grounds, dining room, and social offerings receive consistent positive remarks, while recurring issues with clinical care, staffing stability, and leadership behavior create a contradictory picture of high-end amenities alongside potentially dangerous care lapses.
Facilities and amenities are commonly cited strengths. Multiple reviewers describe Santa Marta as beautiful, clean, and well-maintained, with spacious rooms, a spread-out layout, lovely grounds, and a connected continuum of care (independent living, assisted living, memory care, skilled rehab). The dining experience is often described as restaurant-style with flexible menus, personable dining staff, and generally good food — though there are occasional complaints about inconsistent meal temperature and food quality. On-site services such as a library, salon, pool, chapel with mass, and a strong maintenance team are repeatedly noted. Relocation support and move-in services earn high marks, with specific relocation companies and packers called "world-class" and the moving process described as stress-reducing.
Staffing and care quality produce the strongest divergence in perceptions. A large number of reviews praise individual caregivers, nurses, therapists, and dining and housekeeping teams as caring, attentive, and family-like; many residents and families report that staff remember names, provide personalized touches, and that skilled therapy led to successful short-term rehab and speedy recoveries. Conversely, a concerning subset of reviews details systemic clinical failures: medication errors (wrong medication or dose), residents left unclean (including being found covered in feces), multiple falls resulting in fractures, and infections acquired during rehab stays. These incidents point to inconsistent clinical training, supervision, and protocol adherence. Several reviewers explicitly advise retaining a personal physician and closely supervising nursing care, indicating distrust in on-site medical oversight.
Memory care and assisted living are particularly mixed areas. Some accounts praise connected memory support and engaged programming, while others describe memory care as a "nightmare," call out very high monthly costs (reported around $6,000), and recount significant neglect or poor outcomes. Assisted living cleanliness and staff visibility also receive criticism in certain reviews. Capacity constraints add strain: waitlists, lack of available units, small single rooms with roommates separated only by curtains, and reports that residents were "farmed out" to other facilities or that couples were separated across buildings suggest operational capacity and placement challenges that can disrupt continuity of care and family preferences.
Operational leadership and communication emerge as important negative themes. Several reviewers cite poor management interactions, including allegations of rude or dismissive behavior by leadership (Director of Nursing and Assistant DON named in complaints), contradictory administrative statements versus camera footage, and an overall sense of managerial defensiveness. Communication problems are also practical: poor family communication, a clunky phone/update system for skilled care with awful audio, and unhelpful or robotic tours from admissions staff. At the same time, there are many reports of admissions staff and specific employees being helpful, demonstrating that experiences vary widely depending on individuals and timing.
Ownership, pricing, and ethical concerns are raised by multiple reviewers. The facility is described as Catholic-run with the diocese involved, yet operating under contract with a for-profit corporation; this ownership structure prompted complaints about high cost, perceived financial exploitation, and whether mission-driven values are consistently reflected in care practices. Costs are flagged as high overall, particularly in memory care, and some families feel that pricing is not always justified by the quality of clinical care received.
Patterns and likely root causes: Reviews suggest a pattern of strong hospitality culture in independent living and many exemplary individual caregivers, combined with recurring staffing shortages, inconsistent training, and management shortcomings that impact higher-acuity areas (assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing). Positive outcomes tend to be linked to areas with stable, experienced staff (housekeeping, dining, therapy, maintenance), whereas negative outcomes are associated with units or shifts experiencing turnover, understaffing, or leadership lapses. The contrast between praised admissions/relocation support and criticized clinical operations suggests that the facility invests in front-end hospitality and move-in experience, but may struggle to sustain uniform clinical quality across all care levels.
For prospective residents and families: the reviews recommend careful, targeted due diligence. Ask for specifics about staffing ratios and turnover on the exact unit you are evaluating, request recent incident reports and policies on medication administration and fall prevention, confirm how couples are housed and how transitions between care levels are handled, and test communication channels (phone updates, weekend coverage). If memory care is being considered, demand detailed information on staffing, training, infection control, and recent outcomes, and closely compare cost to the level of documented clinical oversight. When possible, speak with current residents and families in the same unit, and verify management responsiveness and transparency. Positive aspects — facility quality, therapy, maintenance, dining, and many genuinely caring staff — are real strengths, but they coexist with significant and sometimes severe clinical concerns that should be explicitly explored before making a placement decision.
