Overall sentiment is mixed, with clear strengths in day-to-day atmosphere and staff interpersonal qualities but serious, recurring concerns about clinical suitability, safety, and organizational transparency. Several reviewers praise the environment: the facility is described as clean and well run, and many highlight kind, friendly, and responsive staff. Positive comments emphasize home-style cooking, engaging activities such as bingo, and an uplifting, welcoming atmosphere. For some families the location and price were important positives — close to family, affordable, and with at least one reviewer saying they would live there again and highly recommend it.
However, a distinct and significant theme across multiple reviews is that the community is not equipped or appropriately monitored for residents with dementia or higher-care needs. Multiple reports highlight unsafe supervision, including an unsupervised fall and a separate cigarette-related incident, and at least one account states an ambulance was not called when an incident occurred. These are specific safety-related complaints that contrast sharply with the otherwise warm descriptions of staff, suggesting inconsistency between staff demeanor and clinical oversight or training for higher-acuity needs.
Operational and program issues are another repeated pattern. While some reviewers describe activities as engaging, others say activities were not happening as scheduled and that meals were inadequate. One review says a resident felt they lacked a voice in the community, indicating possible shortcomings in resident engagement or responsiveness in certain cases. There is also a reported negative experience tied to a transition into a new building; at least one reviewer named Lewis Manor explicitly and would not recommend it following that transition, pointing to variation in experience tied to facility changes or different campus locations.
Financial and management concerns appear in multiple summaries: reviewers mention lack of transparency about finances, reports that the facility is running in the red, and general financial problems. These complaints raise questions about long-term operational stability and may connect to the other service inconsistencies (activity cancellations, meal quality, supervision levels). Transportation limitations were also reported, with at least one reviewer noting transportation was not provided when needed.
In sum, the reviews present a facility with notable interpersonal strengths — clean, welcoming environment and caring staff who communicate well — and appealing nonclinical features like home cooking and recreational programs. At the same time, there are systemic concerns that prospective residents and families should weigh heavily: documented safety incidents, inadequate dementia care supervision, inconsistent delivery of meals and activities, possible problems during building transitions, and financial opacity. The pattern of mixed high praise and serious safety/management complaints suggests variable performance by unit or over time. Prospective families should verify the facility’s ability to care for dementia or higher-acuity needs, ask for specifics on incident reporting and emergency protocols, confirm current staffing and activity schedules, and request transparent financial and operational information before making a placement decision.
