Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized but predominately negative, with a large cluster of serious and recurring complaints that raise safety, quality-of-care, and regulatory concerns. Many reviewers describe chronic understaffing, inattentive or unprofessional caregivers, and deeply troubling hygiene and maintenance problems — including filthy rooms, strong urine/feces odors, pests (ants, bugs, mouse droppings), and reports of soiled briefs or feces left in resident rooms. Multiple accounts indicate basic care needs are not reliably met: residents reportedly left in wet or soiled garments for hours, long waits for showers or toileting, missed repositioning that increases pressure ulcer risk, and delays or failures in wound care. Several reviewers described situations that imply serious harm (falls left unassisted, untreated wounds, reports of part of a foot lost, ambulance transfers to ICU) and allege abuse or gross neglect. These reports are consistent enough in theme and frequency to suggest systemic staffing and oversight problems during at least some periods.
Staff behavior and competence are a major dividing line in the reviews. A substantial number of family members praise individual CNAs, nurses, therapists, social workers, and an engaged activities team; those reviewers describe compassionate, attentive caregivers, smooth rehab transitions, and life-enrichment programming (field trips, resident store, special events). Rehabilitation services and certain therapy staff receive repeated positive mention for returning residents home. Conversely, a large subset of reviews accuses staff and some nurses of being rude, inattentive, distracted (e.g., on personal phones), undertrained, or simply lazy. There are repeated allegations of medication mishandling (meds left on beds, borrowed meds, medication delays of many hours/days), which — combined with reports of missed physician follow-ups and delayed specialty care (some stating waits of months) — paints a picture of inconsistent clinical oversight. Many reviewers link these problems to high turnover and low pay for direct caregivers, and several explicitly describe a handful of good employees trying to compensate for systemic shortages.
Facility condition and environmental safety are frequently criticized. Numerous reviews mention a pronounced urine/feces smell in resident areas, dirty rooms, garbage and soiled linens left in rooms, and pest sightings. Some reviewers describe episodes where cleaning or pest-control was handled inappropriately (for example, spraying in a room with a resident present). Others counter that the lobby and some public spaces are kept clean and that a new administrator and management changes have led to noticeable improvements in cleanliness and staff friendliness in certain timeframes. The building appears to be older; reviewers report mixed impressions of maintenance and privacy (some mention overcrowded rooms and poor window placement). The variability across reviews suggests inconsistent housekeeping and infection-control practices depending on shift, unit, or management period.
Communication, administration, and billing are additional recurrent problems. Families frequently report being unable to reach nursing staff by phone, calls to nursing stations not answered or hung up, and poor responsiveness from medical records or management. There are reports of mishandled death notifications, insensitively managed hospice cases, and billing problems (including being charged after a resident’s death and concerns about Medicaid/Medicare misuse). Several reviewers urged state investigation or reported filing complaints; a few mentioned police involvement. At the same time, other reviewers call out helpful front-desk personnel, a responsive social work team, and new leadership who addressed concerns promptly — indicating that administrative quality may fluctuate and that recent management changes have improved experiences for some families.
Dining and activities receive mostly mixed-to-positive feedback. Multiple reviewers praise an executive chef, specific meals (soup, hamburgers, tater tots), and regular social events like “Fast Food Friday,” morning coffee, and discussion groups. Activities staff are often described as energetic and creative, and some families appreciated weekly outings and robust programming. However, there are also isolated complaints about dietary errors (wrong texture diets provided) and food being in patient areas, as well as a few comments about food not being to residents’ personal tastes.
Patterns and overall assessment: the reviews reflect a facility with highly inconsistent performance. The dominant pattern is recurring reports of understaffing, neglectful care, hygiene and pest issues, medication and wound-care failures, and poor communication — problems serious enough to have led some families to call for regulatory action. Interspersed among these are numerous positive reports praising dedicated staff, effective rehab outcomes, a strong activities program, and improvements under new management. This polarization suggests that quality of care likely varies by unit, shift, and leadership era; that a small cohort of committed employees may provide excellent care despite systemic problems; and that periods of improvement have been noticed by families.
Given the prevalence and severity of negative reports, anyone considering The Orchards Michigan – Roseville should perform careful, specific due diligence: review the facility’s most recent state inspection and complaint history; ask about current staffing ratios and turnover rates (including evenings/weekends); inquire about medication management and wound-care protocols; request documentation on pest control and housekeeping routines; clarify hospice and end-of-life procedures; confirm billing practices; and ask to see the rehabilitation outcomes data if rehab is a key reason for placement. Also seek references from recent families, visit at different times and shifts to observe day/evening staff behavior, and identify whether the reported improvements under new administration are sustained. The reviews indicate that while there are strong, caring individuals and some legitimately good programs at the facility, there are also recurring, serious concerns that require direct verification and ongoing monitoring before entrusting a high-needs loved one to this community.
