Overall sentiment is mixed but centers on a clear pattern: the staff are frequently praised for being caring, attentive, and willing to go the extra mile, while the facility and systems show inconsistency and some serious problem areas. Multiple reviewers emphasize that frontline caregivers — including named individuals and med aides — are compassionate and engaged, the facility is often described as very clean with no offensive odors, and essential services (ADLs, meals, housekeeping) are generally provided. Several reviewers specifically call out the administrator (Trina) and the resident director as friendly and helpful, and some mention that private rooms with private bathrooms and affordable pricing are positives.
However, these positives are tempered by repeated and significant concerns. Several reviews allege pests/bugs in the building and at least one review alleges money theft — issues that reviewers treat as serious red flags. There are also direct complaints about personal care lapses (for example, a resident reportedly not bathed for over a week) and neglected grooming. These care lapses are tied in some reviews to tight staffing and inconsistent staffing levels; reviewers describe staff as doing their best and going beyond expectations, but also stretched thin. The aggregate impression is of caregivers who are generally well-intentioned and hard-working, but working within an environment where systems and staffing do not consistently ensure every resident's needs are met.
Facility condition is another mixed area. Many reviewers say the building is clean and well-maintained, yet others call it dated, dark, small, or cold-feeling. There are contradictory notes about room finishes (some mentioning carpeted rooms, others noting rooms are not carpeted), which suggests variability between units or changes over time. Activities likewise receive mixed feedback: some reviewers praise good activities and staff engagement, while others say there are few activities available. Dining is a similar mixed picture — snacks and meals are provided, but there are complaints about dining service attitude and about timing discrepancies (for example, lunch served at unexpected hours).
Management and responsiveness appear inconsistent. Several reviews praise the administrator personally, but other reviewers say management promised corrective action and then did not follow through. There are reports of staff bad-mouthing residents and of alleged lapses in accountability. Safety concerns are raised by at least one reviewer who characterizes the location as unsafe, and the allegations of theft and pests heighten those concerns. Taken together, these items point to recurring quality-control and oversight issues rather than a uniform failure of care.
Bottom line: Watercrest at Carrington has many strong, positive reports about staff warmth, cleanliness, and basic care being provided, but those are offset by recurring and serious concerns in multiple reviews — pests, alleged theft, missed personal care, inconsistent management follow-through, and variable facility conditions. The pattern suggests that outcomes can vary considerably depending on unit, staffing on a given day, and management responsiveness. Prospective residents and families should weigh the clear strengths in staff compassion and basic services against the serious allegations and inconsistencies. A recommended next step before deciding would be an in-person visit (multiple visits at different times), asking direct questions about pest control, incident/theft reporting and resolution, staffing ratios and schedules, bathing/grooming routines, recent complaints and corrective actions, and observing mealtimes and activities firsthand.
