Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers describe St Anthony Community Care Center as a clean, welcoming facility with caring, attentive staff who create a family-like environment and keep residents engaged. Multiple reviewers praise the facility’s cleanliness (many explicitly say “no odors”), active daily programming (bingo, entertainers, church services, outings, full activity calendar), garden and fenced outdoor areas, and availability of rehabilitation equipment and skilled nursing/therapy. Several families report excellent transitions, personalized attention, and leadership involvement that put them at ease. Cost is noted as comparable to other facilities, and the dementia unit and dining spaces receive positive mention from some families.
However, there is a persistent and serious set of negative reports that cannot be overlooked. Many reviews describe inconsistent staff quality: while some staff are described as phenomenal, others are described as incompetent or neglectful. Multiple reviewers report alarming clinical and safety incidents including falls, wounds from transfers, untreated bedsores, blood on clothing or at nurse stations, failure to provide oxygen during bathing, patients left in soiled diapers, and alleged lack of turning for immobile patients. There are also repeated concerns about medication management — late or missed doses and at least one claim that medications were used to sedate residents to prevent movement. These clinical failures are tied to accounts of poor responsiveness and insufficient follow-up when incidents occur; some reviewers say staff apologized but systemic problems remained, and at least one reviewer reported a patient death connected to unsafe care.
Facilities and environment receive both praise and criticism. Many reviewers emphasize a very clean interior and pleasant outdoor spaces with flowers and a garden. The dining area is described as large and accessible, and activities are well-attended and varied. Conversely, some mention that rooms are small and frequently shared two-per-room, and a few reviewers describe the building as old. Dining quality is also mixed: several reviewers enjoy the food and events (Mardi Gras, Valentine’s) while a few report very poor meals for vulnerable residents (example: soft-diet sandwich and chips). The dementia unit is noted as being relatively small (mostly two residents per room), which some families appreciated.
Management and communication impressions are similarly split. Some families praise an involved administrator, proactive communication, and a smooth admissions process. In stark contrast, other reviews allege poor communication, discriminatory remarks and threats by administration (including threats of discharge), and a difficult inquiry/complaint process. Security concerns were raised, including reports that the facility may not adequately prevent residents from wandering toward unsafe areas such as a nearby highway. Several reviewers explicitly warn prospective families to visit, ask questions, and be cautious due to reported incidents.
Patterns and practical takeaways: the reviews suggest that the facility can deliver excellent, compassionate, and engaging care for many residents, particularly those who are more social and mobile or who receive the attention of committed staff members. At the same time, there is a nontrivial number of serious clinical and safety complaints that point to variability in staff training, staffing levels, supervision, and clinical oversight. Before choosing this facility, prospective families should specifically ask about staffing ratios (day/night shifts), fall-prevention practices, wound and skin care protocols, medication administration processes, incident reporting and follow-up, security measures to prevent elopement, dementia unit organization, and how management handles complaints and adverse events. Visiting multiple times and speaking with direct care staff, current families, and leadership about those specific concerns will provide the best sense of whether the facility’s strengths (cleanliness, activities, some highly praised staff) outweigh the potential risks indicated by the negative reports.
