Overall sentiment: Reviews for Martha T Berry Medical Care Facility are strongly polarized. A substantial number of families and reviewers describe compassionate, attentive care, clean renovated areas, engaging activities, and strong hospice support. At the same time, a notable portion of reviews recount troubling lapses: understaffing, inconsistent caregiving across shifts, poor communication from administration, alleged theft of personal items, and problems with timely medical management. The result is a mixed but repeatable pattern: excellent experiences under some teams and shifts, and serious negative experiences under others.
Care quality and staffing: Many reviewers praise individual nurses, CNAs, and hospice staff by name, describing them as empathetic, professional, and going “the extra mile.” Several families reported clear improvements in physical or dementia-related conditions, reliable continence support, and dignity-preserving end-of-life care when hospice was involved. Conversely, multiple accounts detail understaffing that led to basic care delays — 3-hour waits for help, missed showers, inadequate feeding assistance, weight loss during lockdown, and alleged neglect that families believe contributed to harm or death. The staffing inconsistency stands out: reviewers frequently mention that some staff follow care plans closely while others do not, and that temporary or agency staff can be impolite or lack compassion.
Medical management and communication: Complaints about slow or poor medical communication recur across reviews. Families cite delays in evaluations, medication side effects (including diarrhea), pain control failures (morphine not sufficient), disputed diagnostic readings (X-rays), and documentation lag. Several reviews call out specific administrative unresponsiveness — including named individuals such as Director of Nursing Susan Stewart and a coordinator named Donna — for not returning calls or failing to follow up. In contrast, other families report prompt, clear updates (weekly video calls, regular hospice updates), so communication quality appears inconsistent and often dependent on who is on duty or the involved staff member.
Facilities and environment: Physical facilities receive mostly positive remarks. The renovated front section, large renovated rooms, modern layout, library, and well-kept courtyards/gardens/gazebo are consistently praised. The campus is described as secure and convenient, with ample parking and enclosed outdoor patios. However, critics point to the older parts of the building (smaller semi-private rooms), occasional maintenance issues (reports of no hot water), and some cleanliness/music laundry mishaps (improper detergent use). Overall, the environment is considered pleasant and recently updated in many areas, but experiences differ depending on the wing and room assigned.
Activities and dining: Activity programming is frequently highlighted as a strong point: movie nights, piano, crafts, exercises, bingo, church services, entertainers, and cognitive activities are listed by multiple reviewers. These programs contribute positively to residents’ social and mental engagement. Dining opinions are mixed — many reviewers say the food is good, varied, and well-served (dining room and in-room options), while others report cold meals, not receiving what was ordered, or general dissatisfaction. This again reflects variability rather than a single uniform experience.
Management, policies, and safety concerns: Multiple reviewers raise concerns about management responsiveness and prioritization. Recurrent themes are promises not kept, lack of accountability for missed care, staff scheduling gaps (staff on vacation during holidays), and perceived prioritization of administrative convenience (such as visiting restrictions during COVID) over family access. Serious safety and trust issues include allegations of missing or stolen clothing and personal items after facility laundry services and reports that families were prevented from seeing or saying goodbye to residents at end of life. Additionally, some families report negative interactions when posting criticisms on social media.
Patterns and polarity: The reviews indicate a facility that can provide excellent, even exceptional care under many circumstances — particularly where dedicated staff and hospice are involved — but also a facility that has systemic vulnerabilities: staffing instability, uneven training or onboarding of temporary staff, and inconsistent leadership follow-through. The positive reviews emphasize clean, renovated spaces, compassionate named staff, active programming, and overall value for county/Medicaid placements. The negative reviews emphasize gaps that can be clinically important: delayed assistance, pain mismanagement, poor communication, and missing belongings.
Takeaway: For prospective residents and families, the facility shows clear strengths in environment, programming, and pockets of very strong clinical/hospice care. However, decision-makers should be mindful of the variability reported. Practical steps based on these reviews would be to (a) tour the specific wing/room of interest to assess renovated vs. older spaces, (b) ask directly about staffing ratios and use of agency staff on the unit where the resident would live, (c) clarify laundry and personal belongings policies and procedures, (d) inquire about documentation and communication practices (how families are updated, escalation policies, and names of on-call leadership), and (e) verify visiting policies and end-of-life access. The facility earns strong endorsements from many families and staff, but the recurring themes of inconsistent care and management responsiveness are significant and deserve direct questions before placement.
