Overall impression Fields of Florence elicits strongly mixed reviews, with many families and residents praising the facility's physical environment, social programming, and compassionate direct-care staff, while a substantial number of reports raise serious concerns about management, staffing, safety, and consistency of care. The community is frequently described as a beautiful, updated building with a home-like atmosphere, good location, and attractive public spaces; however, the quality of daily operations and leadership reliability appears uneven and has been changing over time, especially after ownership transitions.
Care quality and staffing One of the most consistent themes is the variability in direct resident care. Numerous reviews commend individual aides, nurses, the activities director, and teams who provide attentive, compassionate care, one-on-one time, and strong resident engagement. In contrast, many other reviews document chronic staffing shortages, high turnover, and insufficient nurse coverage. Consequences reported include delayed responses to call buttons, missed medication doses, medications allegedly administered by unlicensed personnel, inconsistent documentation (insulin/medication records), falls requiring ER visits, and residents declining when needs increased. Several families described receiving eviction notices or having to move residents out when the level of care proved inadequate. The picture is therefore bifurcated: excellent care at the level of committed frontline staff, undermined at times by insufficient staffing levels and weak clinical oversight.
Facilities, housekeeping, and memory care specifics The building and common areas receive frequent praise for being clean, modern, and well-decorated. Apartment size and layout in assisted living are often noted as a positive (secure, private, well-equipped kitchens and baths). Yet unit-level housekeeping and maintenance are inconsistent: some families report unvacuumed units, dirty toilets, mold or dust, long gaps between sheet changes, laundry not returned, and maintenance problems such as non-working entrance doors and other equipment issues. Memory care is another mixed area: some reviewers hailed the memory care team as phenomenal, while others described small, shared rooms, missing standard furnishings (residents sleeping in recliners, single beds lacking), overcapacity, and an environment that depressed some residents. Security concerns tied to memory care—an elopement incident and wandering risk—were raised and point to gaps in oversight and secure outdoor spaces.
Dining and nutrition Dining is a recurrent pain point. Many reviewers liked aspects of the dining program—three meals included, social dining experiences, outings to restaurants, and some improvements under new chefs—while a large number criticized food quality, portioning, and nutrition (meals described as salty, unhealthy, cold, or low quality; missing condiments; serving greens to someone on Coumadin). Some families noted dietary restrictions were not consistently honored. The inconsistent meal experience, combined with reports of residents skipping meals when staff failed to escort or assist them, has been a significant contributor to clinical decline for a subset of residents.
Activities and social life A notable strength is the range and vibrancy of activities reported by many families. The activities director and team receive frequent praise for organizing diverse programs—games, concerts, bistro outings, spa days, and volunteer engagement—that foster socialization and enjoyment. Several residents thrive and report an excellent social life, while others note activities skewed toward certain resident groups, limited offerings for men, or cancelled programs when staffing is thin. Overall, when activities staff are supported and staffed appropriately, programs are a meaningful positive for the community.
Management, communication, and administration Management and leadership are the areas with the most polarized feedback. Many reviewers cite poor communication, unresponsiveness to family calls, broken promises, misrepresentation during intake/sales, billing disputes, eviction notices, and failure to follow up on refunds or incident reports. Several reviews specifically mention rapid leadership turnover, change in ownership, and a perception that the new management is revenue-driven and less focused on resident care. Conversely, some families report positive interactions with specific administrators (including a temporary administrator praised for improvements) and successful resolution of issues. The net pattern is inconsistent leadership and unreliable administrative accountability, which compounds frontline staffing and care problems.
Safety, accountability, and reported incidents There are multiple serious allegations across reviews that warrant attention: elopement and security oversights, medication mistakes and alleged theft, residents experiencing falls or being left without timely aid, and reports of multiple ER/hospital visits. Several families reported feeling misled and threatened with eviction; others described promised refunds that were never fully honored. A few reviews mentioned vendor payment problems and unpaid bills, suggesting deeper operational or financial management issues. These patterns of lapses in safety and accountability are major concerns for prospective families and should prompt scrutiny and direct questions when considering placement.
Variability and polarization of experiences A defining characteristic of the reviews is polarization: many families report a five-star experience—saying the community feels like home, praising staff kindness, food, activities, and long-term thriving—while an equally substantial group reports dire experiences, poor responsiveness, neglect, and management malfeasance. This suggests that resident outcomes may depend heavily on timing (periods of stable leadership vs. transition), specific staff on duty, level of care required (independent vs. higher-dependency needs), and how well the community's current staffing model matches residents' clinical complexity.
Conclusions and guidance Fields of Florence offers many real strengths: an attractive, updated campus, robust social programming, friendly frontline staff, and reasonable pricing for some families. However, reviews reveal recurring and serious concerns about staffing adequacy, medication management, unit-level cleanliness, meal quality, leadership stability, and safety oversight—especially in higher-acuity or memory care situations. Prospective residents and families should: (1) ask for detailed, written descriptions of available clinical services and nurse coverage by shift; (2) request recent staffing and turnover statistics and incident reports; (3) verify medication administration policies and who is licensed to give medications; (4) tour memory care spaces during active hours and ask about room size/furnishings and resident-to-staff ratios; (5) obtain written guarantees about billing, refunds, and eviction policies; and (6) speak with multiple families and, if possible, current residents about recent trends since any ownership or leadership change. Given the polarized experiences, careful, targeted due diligence is essential before choosing this community.
