Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed, with a strong polarization between reviewers who describe the Leonard Florence Center for Living as outstanding and those who report serious care failures. A substantial portion of reviews praise the facility’s staff, therapy services, food, and environment; many other reviews recount worrying instances of neglect, poor communication, and safety lapses. The pattern is one of high highs and low lows rather than uniform performance.
Care quality and staff: The most frequent positive theme is the presence of compassionate, dedicated caregivers and a highly regarded rehab team. Multiple reviewers singled out physical and occupational therapy as “amazing” and credited therapists with helping residents regain independence. Long-tenured staff and watchful caregiving were highlighted as strengths; several reviews named individual staff members (for example, Joyce, Ina Hoffman, and kitchen staff Gisely and Mark) for going above and beyond. Conversely, a number of reviews describe understaffing, temporary or untrained personnel, rude supervisors, and unresponsive calls for assistance. Serious problems reported include stage 4 pressure ulcers (bedsores), lack of air mattresses, missed medications or overmedication at night, neglect of basic hygiene (unclean hair, nails, inadequate bathing), and in extreme cases residents dying shortly after admission. These conflicting reports point to inconsistency in staffing levels, training, and supervision across shifts or units.
Facilities and environment: Reviewers frequently praised the building itself — described as bright, beautiful, hotel-like, and homey — with small floors (around 10 residents) and private rooms in some areas. The layout (kitchen and dining located on resident floors) and welcoming common areas were positively noted, as were cleanliness and a pleasant, landscaped urban setting with harbor views from certain units. A few reviewers mentioned missing amenities such as a swimming pool, but overall the physical plant is seen as an asset.
Dining and activities: Dining receives strong positive mention from many reviews: freshly prepared meals, hot and cold service, fresh pastries, ample portions, and engaged kitchen staff who prepare appealing food. Multiple reviewers referenced social elements around meals and activities — communal TV watching, Super Bowl snacks, live musical entertainment, and welcoming gathering areas — contributing to a home-like atmosphere. A minority of reviews, however, found the food inedible, indicating variability in kitchen performance or individual expectations.
Management, admissions, and communication: Several reviewers reported exemplary responsiveness from admissions and senior leadership who personally visited and secured beds, maintained contact during stays, and coordinated hospice when needed. These positive management interactions contributed to trust and satisfaction. On the other hand, there are repeated concerns about management responsiveness in the face of problems — reviewers called for retraining, staff replacement, or criticized unhelpful supervisors and directors. Communication lapses with families, slow response to call bells, language barriers, and inconsistent information were recurrent negative themes.
Safety and sanitation concerns: While many reviews emphasize cleanliness, a subset raises alarmingly specific safety and sanitation incidents: an injectable left in a common area, blood in an elevator, feces/urine upon discharge, and other unsafe conditions. These reports, combined with allegations of neglect and serious wounds, are among the most consequential negative claims and contribute heavily to distrust among some reviewers.
Patterns and takeaway: The dominant pattern is variability. Many families report transformational, compassionate care, excellent rehabilitation, and a comfortable, attractive setting with great dining and attentive staff. Simultaneously, a nontrivial number of reviewers report neglect, safety lapses, poor communication, and rude or unresponsive staff. This suggests that experiences may depend heavily on specific units, shifts, individual caregivers, or recent staffing changes.
If evaluating Leonard Florence Center for Living, potential residents and families should consider both the consistently praised strengths (strong rehab programs, attractive facility, engaged kitchen, and many dedicated long-term staff) and the documented concerns (reports of neglect, inconsistent staffing/communication, and isolated serious safety incidents). It would be prudent to ask the facility about current staffing ratios, staff turnover, supervision and training practices, recent incident reports, infection-control and pressure-ulcer prevention protocols, and how they handle family communication and language access. Visiting multiple units, speaking with therapy staff, dining during a mealtime, and asking for references from recent families could help assess whether the experience is likely to be one of the positive accounts or one of the problematic reports reflected in these reviews.