Overall impression: Reviews of The Manor of Farmington Hills are strongly mixed, with a sharp divide between accounts that praise individual staff members and clinical teams and accounts that describe systemic problems with staffing, management, safety, and hygiene. Many families report exceptional, compassionate care from nurses, CNAs, and therapy staff, and recount successful short-term rehabilitation and reassuring end-of-life support. At the same time, a significant portion of reviews report serious lapses in care quality, neglect, and unsafe conditions. This polarization suggests inconsistent performance across units, shifts, or time periods rather than uniformly good or bad performance.
Care quality and clinical issues: Positive reviews consistently highlight attentive nursing and CNA care, good therapy outcomes, thorough medical attention, and families being kept informed about hospital transfers and significant events. Conversely, numerous negative reports document delayed or ignored call lights (sometimes for hours), missed or incorrect medications, inadequate glucose monitoring, poor catheter care, untreated wounds or bedsores, malnutrition, and reports of septic shock or serious hospitalizations. There are also several accounts of clinical misjudgment (e.g., a doctor not recommending hospitalization followed by a lengthy inpatient stay) and at least one report of COVID-related death and concerns about misdiagnosis. These patterns indicate notable variability in clinical competence and consistency of monitoring and follow-up.
Staffing, professionalism, and communication: One of the most recurrent themes is chronic understaffing and high turnover, which reviewers link to rushed, exhausted, or unavailable staff. Many negative reviews describe rude, defensive, or belligerent behavior from administrators, social workers, or front-desk personnel; however, many other reviews single out individual staff who are warm, responsive, and highly professional. Communication problems are common: unresponsive phone lines, overworked receptionists, inaccurate or conflicting information from social workers, and corporate-level complaints being ignored. The result is a mixed experience where families sometimes receive excellent, family-centered communication and other times feel disregarded and uninformed.
Facility, cleanliness, and safety: The physical plant gets mixed marks. Several reviewers praise clean rooms, fresh linens, and tidy housekeeping, while others describe urine and fecal odors in hallways, filthy toilets, dusty vents, and general filth. The building is frequently described as older, drafty, and underlit, with some rooms extremely small or closet-sized and some shared rooms and bathrooms cramped. Safety concerns appear repeatedly: delayed emergency responses after falls, wet floors, narrow/crowded hallways, and comments describing fire hazards or wheelchair access issues. These reports raise concerns about environmental risks and inconsistent adherence to hygiene and safety protocols.
Dining, services, and activities: Reviews show inconsistent experience with dietary services. Some families praise dietary staff and accommodations, while others report cold meals, failure to follow dietary guidelines, and small or inadequate dining spaces. Advertised services—transportation, outings, barber/beauty services—were reported as not being provided by some reviewers. There are several mentions that essential supplies (towels, gowns) ran out or were inconsistently available, which points to logistic or supply-chain problems at times.
Property management and trust issues: Management and leadership are polarizing points. A number of reviewers praise specific leaders and administrators for responsiveness and leadership during difficult periods (including named staff like Carla Dillard and Bianca), and describe organized, proactive problem resolution. In contrast, other reviewers describe belligerent or indifferent administrators, ignored corporate complaints, and a defensive culture. Reports also include claims of missing or stolen personal items and opened bags after discharge, plus payroll limitations (paper checks, no direct deposit) and billing/administrative friction. These trust and governance issues exacerbate families’ concerns when clinical or safety problems arise.
Rehabilitation and therapy: Physical, occupational, and speech therapy receive consistent praise in many accounts: reviewers describe motivated, skilled therapists, notable rehab success, and return-to-function outcomes that prompt families to recommend the rehab program. Some negative comments apply to the room size and comfort during short-stay rehab (very small rooms) or missing belongings at discharge, but the therapy teams themselves are repeatedly commended.
Patterns and overall risk assessment: The reviews suggest that The Manor of Farmington Hills can deliver excellent, compassionate care under certain conditions—particularly when skilled staff and effective leadership are present. However, there are enough repeated, severe complaints (ignored call lights, medication errors, wounds/bedsores, poor hygiene, delayed emergency responses, and management indifference) that families should exercise caution. Positive experiences often emphasize specific staff members or teams; negative experiences often emphasize systemic issues such as staffing shortages and management failings. The facility also appears to have variability over time or between units, with reports of recent renovations in some wings alongside descriptions of aging, under-maintained areas.
If evaluating this facility: Prospective residents and families should verify current staffing levels, ask about recent quality surveys and complaint resolution, request specifics on wound care and infection control protocols, tour both older and renovated wings, and ask about weekend/after-hours nurse coverage and supply availability. During a stay, closely monitor wound care, nutrition, medication administration, personal belongings, and response times to call lights. Seek named staff who are documented as reliable in reviews (when possible) and obtain clear points of contact for escalations. The combination of highly praised individual clinicians and repeated reports of systemic problems makes direct observation and ongoing advocacy important when considering or using this facility.
