Overall sentiment across the short review summaries is mixed, with clear strengths in programming, staff demeanor, and affordability but strong and recurring concerns about facility condition and pests. Multiple reviewers praised the activity offerings and characterized the staff and primary contacts as honest and nice, which indicates positive day-to-day interpersonal interactions. At the same time, several reviewers raised significant red flags — most notably a bed bug problem described as recurring — and described the facility as older and leaving "not a very good impression." These negative items appear to weigh heavily in decision-making for at least some reviewers.
Staff and programming emerge as reliable positives. Reviews specifically call out "great activities," and staff are described as "honest" with a "nice" contact. These comments suggest that social and engagement opportunities are strong and that frontline personnel leave a generally favorable impression when interacting with prospective residents or families. That combination can be an important attractor for people prioritizing engagement and personable staff.
Facility condition and pest control are the most serious concerns. Multiple reviews mention a bed bug issue and indicate it is recurring, which signals an unresolved or ongoing pest-control problem rather than an isolated incident. Coupled with comments that the building is "older" and gave some reviewers a poor overall impression, these details point to maintenance, cleanliness, or capital-improvement shortcomings that could materially affect resident comfort and the facility’s reputation. The recurrence of the pest issue also raises questions about the effectiveness of management’s remediation and prevention measures.
Location and cost present a mixed picture. Some reviewers call out a "great location," while others report the facility is "far from family" and "far from doctors." This likely reflects differing reference points among reviewers — for some the location is convenient, for others it creates travel difficulties. Affordability is consistently noted as a positive: comments like "cost less" and "rates good" indicate the facility may be competitively priced, which can attract budget-conscious families even if the physical plant is older.
In summary, the reviews form a coherent pattern: FENTON ASSISTED LIVING appears to offer appealing activities, honest and personable staff, and competitive pricing, but persistent and serious concerns about an older building and a recurring bed bug problem significantly tarnish its reputation for some reviewers. The mixed reports about location suggest suitability will depend on an individual’s proximity to family and medical providers. Prospective residents and families reading these summaries would likely view the facility as worth investigating for its programming, staff, and affordability, but they would also have legitimate cause to press management for specifics about pest control history, facility maintenance, and the steps taken to address reported problems before making a placement decision.
