Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly positive, centered on exceptional frontline caregiving and a warm, home-like environment. The most consistent praise is for the staff — described repeatedly as kind, caring, compassionate and attentive — and for the facility’s small size, which many families feel enables individualized, one-on-one attention. Multiple reviewers explicitly noted that residents are well cared for, that staff take pride in their jobs, and that the community fosters a family-like atmosphere. Several reviewers called out hospice availability and helpfulness, dementia-inclusive approaches, and practical communication features such as photo or text updates, all of which reinforce the perception of hands-on, resident-focused care.
Facility and daily-life aspects receive similarly positive remarks. The community is frequently described as clean, well-kept, and attractive inside, with a “house-like” layout and well-designed rooms and bathrooms. Reviewers praised the dining — noting good food — and the activity program, highlighting that residents enjoy activities and the social atmosphere. The small residential scale is repeatedly mentioned as a strength because it supports more individualized attention and closer relationships between staff, residents, and families.
Despite the many strengths, several recurring concerns appear and are worth noting. Management- and leadership-related issues surface in multiple reviews: a few family members felt the owner lacked compassion or sufficient administrative knowledge (particularly around insurance), and some requested more hands-on involvement from leadership. There was at least one cluster of comments about new management transitions creating issues that required meetings and promised follow-up; in those cases families said resolution was anticipated, which suggests responsiveness but also a period of service disruption. Communication gaps are mentioned by some reviewers as well — for example, unreturned calls or occasional lapses in staff responsiveness — even though other families praised communication via photo/text updates.
Staffing and training are additional areas for improvement. Several reviewers recommended more in-service training specific to total-care residents and noted that bathing and other hands-on care sometimes require more staff assistance. A small number of families reported lapses in staff attention that led them to move briefly or consider other facilities, though at least one family returned and reported renewed satisfaction. Finally, physical plant issues are minor but present: exterior upkeep and a need for remodeling were singled out a few times, with reviewers saying the “bones are good” but some updating would help.
In summary, reviews portray Elderly Solutions as a compassionate, small-scale community with strong direct care, clean and pleasant living spaces, good food, effective hospice partnerships, and an engaged, caring staff that creates a family-like environment. Key areas to address are leadership visibility and administrative knowledge (especially around insurance), consistent communication practices, targeted in-service training for total care tasks, and occasional boosts to staffing during personal care tasks like bathing. Attention to exterior upkeep and selective remodeling would also align the facility’s outward appearance with the high marks given to its internal care and atmosphere. Overall, strengths in staffing and individualized care are the dominant themes, and the cited concerns are specific and actionable rather than systemic, suggesting the facility can sustain and improve its positive standing with focused management efforts.
