Overall sentiment in the reviews for Faith Haven Senior Care Centre is highly mixed, with strong polarization between accounts of compassionate, skilled staff and serious allegations of neglect, safety lapses, and poor facility conditions. Many reviewers report positive, personal interactions with named CNAs, therapists, and administrative staff who are described as caring, attentive, and professional. These positive reports frequently highlight effective rehabilitation services, an excellent transition program, individualized therapy, enjoyable activities (bingo, card games, jewelry making), and assistance with insurance and discharge planning. Several families explicitly recommend Faith Haven based on these experiences and praise the home-like atmosphere, grounds, and some well-maintained rooms and services such as hair care and extra amenities.
Contrasting sharply with those positive accounts are numerous and specific negative reports. A significant theme is chronic understaffing and inconsistent staffing levels, which reviewers link to long response times to call bells, delayed toileting assistance resulting in falls and injuries, and overall inconsistent delivery of basic care. Multiple reviewers describe medical errors or lapses in clinical judgment, including denied or missed therapies (sometimes blamed on paperwork or Medicare issues), failure to recognize or respond appropriately during health emergencies, and cases with severe outcomes such as head wounds, gangrene, amputations, broken toes, and deaths. These severe incidents are accompanied by accounts of inadequate nursing assessment, delayed oxygen use, and alleged refusal or delay of services that families believe contributed to poor patient outcomes.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance emerge as another major dividing line. Some families find rooms clean and well-kept, while others report disgusting conditions: strong urine or fecal odors, unswept floors, pest sightings including ants, cockroaches, and reports of bug bites, dirty briefs left in beds, and even alleged unsafe practices related to hygiene. Building issues extend to lack of air conditioning in some areas, no automatic doors creating accessibility challenges, shared bathrooms per wing, cramped rooms with poor layouts, and dated infrastructure. Supply shortages are also recurring: missing silverware, cups, briefs, linens, and other basic items were cited alongside allegations of belongings going missing from patient rooms.
Dining and food service produce mixed feedback. Several reviews praise the food as very good or excellent and note well-planned dining experiences, but an almost equal number of reviewers describe poor or cold meals, wrong orders, mixed-up food restrictions, and shortages during service. In some cases dining rooms were closed due to COVID and residents ate in their bedrooms, which contributed to negative perceptions of meal service. Activities and social programming are generally seen as a strength when present, with multiple mentions of active programs and residents enjoying games and crafts, but some families reported a lack of engagement and residents wandering with nothing to do.
Management and organizational concerns are frequently raised. Complaints include perceived money-driven decision making, frequent management turnover, poor communication in some cases, and staff who seem underappreciated or working in a toxic environment. Conversely, other reviewers describe administration as approachable, communicative, and helpful. This split suggests considerable variability in leadership experience and operational consistency over time or across shifts.
Safety and governance issues stand out in several alarming reports: roommate assaults, police involvement, patients wandering unsupervised, and alleged inaction by staff and authorities during some incidents. Families describe both exemplary crisis care in some situations and alarming neglect in others. The net impression is that care quality can vary dramatically depending on the staff on duty, time of day, and possibly specific units within the facility.
In conclusion, the pattern across reviews is one of extremes: Faith Haven delivers excellent, compassionate, and effective care for many residents according to a substantial number of families, particularly in rehabilitation, therapy, and when experienced staff are present. At the same time, critical systemic problems recur in other reports — understaffing, inconsistent clinical care, serious safety incidents, sanitation and pest issues, supply shortages, and management instability. Prospective families should weigh these mixed reports carefully. If considering Faith Haven, it is advisable to tour the specific unit, ask about staffing ratios and recent safety/inspection records, meet the direct care team, verify therapy availability, confirm infection control practices, and maintain regular family involvement and monitoring to help ensure consistent, safe care.
