The reviews of Canfield Care Manor present a mixed but sharply divided picture. On the positive side many reviewers emphasize a warm, welcoming atmosphere: aides and caregivers are repeatedly described as friendly, kind, and hardworking. Several summaries highlight an immaculately maintained home — ‘‘very clean’’ and ‘‘spotless’’ are used — with cheerful residents and a well-kept appearance. Homemade meals and special holiday meals are mentioned multiple times as a strength, and the facility’s common areas, adequate bedrooms, and a large outdoor/back area with wildlife are noted positively. Several people gave strong overall endorsements, saying they would choose Canfield Manor again and describing the tour experience as informative and reassuring. For at least some families, the facility provides good long-term care and attentive day‑to‑day support.
However, a particularly serious cluster of complaints dramatically changes the overall assessment for other reviewers. One or more reviews allege critical clinical failures: oxygen that was not turned on as ordered, ignored medical instructions, and a near‑death hypoxia incident. Those reports claim caregivers ignored signs such as wheezing and garbled speech, and that hospice had to be called. The reviews name specific staff (aide Rhonda) and the owner (Satish) in connection with alleged shortcomings. These accounts also assert that multiple deaths occurred and that the owner did not offer condolences, framing management as principally focused on money rather than patient welfare. Those concerns are framed as daily red flags and are said to be supported by recorded evidence, making them among the most severe and salient criticisms in the dataset.
There is a pronounced contradiction across reviews: while many reviewers praise staff demeanor, cleanliness, food, and a generally positive environment, at least one reviewer alleges serious clinical neglect and uncaring management. This divergence suggests variability in experiences — either across different residents, staff shifts, or over time — or that individual incidents have strongly influenced perceptions. Several summaries explicitly note disputed claims about the facility’s ability to provide skilled care, indicating that prospective families should not assume uniform clinical capability based solely on general positive impressions.
Other recurring, less severe concerns include limited activities for residents, shared rooms that reduce personal space, and a need for more individualized care. Practical issues such as location distance for some visitors are also mentioned. Management and ownership are a central theme in the negative accounts: the owner is portrayed as business‑focused and unresponsive to family grief or complaints. In contrast, front‑line staff receive consistently positive remarks, which creates a pattern where daily caregiving may be competent and compassionate while systemic, clinical, or administrative failings (as alleged) create risk and dissatisfaction for certain families.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility with many positive qualities — cleanliness, good food, friendly aides, and a homelike environment — alongside at least one serious, detailed complaint alleging clinical neglect and uncaring management. The presence of both strong praise and severe safety allegations means the overall sentiment is mixed and context‑dependent. Prospective residents and their families should weigh both sets of information: confirm the generally praised nonclinical qualities during a tour, but also investigate clinical oversight, documented incident history, staff training and turnover, how the facility handles medical orders (especially oxygen or other critical treatments), and management responsiveness to complaints. If possible, request records, speak with multiple families and shifts, and verify licensing and inspection reports to reconcile the conflicting impressions reflected in these reviews.
