Overall sentiment across the reviews for Park at Franklin is highly mixed, with recurring polarization between families who praise the staff, activities, and community feel and families who report serious, sometimes alarming problems with care, cleanliness, management, and safety. Many reviews celebrate warm, professional and helpful staff members, engaging activities (bingo, exercise, movie nights, classes, outings), and a long list of on-site amenities such as a salon, mini-theater, library, deli, and convenient location. These positives are cited frequently: residents who thrive socially, families who appreciate visible nursing checks, and guests who value the flexible dining and activity schedules often speak highly of the place and would recommend it.
However, the positive experience is far from universal. A large number of reviews document inconsistent cleanliness, pest issues (bed bugs and roaches), deferred maintenance, and staffing shortages. Multiple reviewers describe dirty carpets, dining rooms that are not deeply cleaned, malfunctioning kitchen equipment, and housekeeping that is suspended or only performed when supervised. Pest infestations are a significant recurring complaint; reports of bed bugs and poor pest control responses are among the most serious red flags in the dataset. Maintenance complaints extend to systemic building problems—malfunctioning elevators for months, HVAC failures, roof leaks, and windows or doors in need of repair—sometimes concentrated in buildings or wings other than the main building.
Care quality and clinical operations show broad variability. Several families report attentive, compassionate nursing and caregivers who go above and beyond, regular two-hour checks, and quick responses to individual needs. Conversely, others report untrained or uncertified caregivers, missed personal care tasks (not brushing teeth, not bathing/changing), slow medication administration, and even incidents that led to hospitalizations. Memory care receives mixed reviews: some praise memory-care programming, a proactive director, and therapeutic offerings while others report security lapses, wandering, smell/odor on the memory floor, crowded rooms, and staff insufficiently trained to manage dementia-related behaviors. These differences often appear to track with staffing levels, management responsiveness, and which building/floor a resident is in.
Dining services elicit a split response as well. Many reviewers compliment the food and the dining experience—hot dinners, family-friendly dining rooms, and attractive meals. Yet others describe stingy portions, slow service, dirty dining facilities, cold or lumpy continental breakfasts, insufficient dinnerware, and high per-meal charges (with an example of a $15 meal and complaints about being charged for seconds or room service). Families repeatedly mention lack of clarity around additional meal charges and other extra fees. Accessibility and reliability of transportation and shuttle services were praised by some but frequently criticized as unreliable or broken by others.
Management, administration, and communication are another major theme. Some reviewers single out engaged, open directors and marketing staff who are helpful and follow through on commitments. Many other reviewers report poor follow-up, unanswered phones, lost work orders, lease and billing disputes (including past-due notices despite payments, credit-report impacts, and eviction threats), and impression of management prioritizing rent collection over resident welfare. There are multiple accounts of misleading intake promises—services or levels of care promised at move-in that were not delivered—and families encountering difficulty exiting leases or obtaining refunds after short stays. These administrative failures exacerbate clinical and operational complaints, creating a pattern of trust issues for many families.
Safety, infection control, and policy adherence also appear inconsistent. Reports include inadequate COVID protocols, allowing positive visitors, contamination or sanitary lapses (reports of feces/wet pull-ups left in rooms, cleaned only after family notification), and safety/access concerns (front doors that open to outside and inadequate night coverage in some reports). Some reviewers note strong security and a safe-feeling environment, reinforcing the variability across units and staff shifts.
Patterns by building and time frame emerge: reviewers frequently contrast a well-kept main building with other buildings or wings described as neglected. Several accounts mention improvements under new management or with certain staff members, while others document declines after management or staff turnover. Staffing is a common driver: when staffing levels and training are adequate, families report good care and an active, supportive community; when staffing is stretched, the negative issues (missed care, cleanliness lapses, slow meds) become more pronounced.
In summary, Park at Franklin shows evidence of many strengths—an active community, numerous amenities, and staff members who can be caring and attentive—but also substantial, recurring operational and clinical weaknesses that have led to serious dissatisfaction for a notable subset of residents and families. The most consequential concerns are pest infestations, inconsistent staff training and coverage, cleanliness and housekeeping lapses, maintenance backlogs, and administrative/billing failures. For prospective residents or families considering Park at Franklin, the reviews suggest it is essential to: (1) tour multiple buildings and ask for unit-specific maintenance and pest-treatment histories; (2) verify staffing ratios and caregiver certification for the intended care level and shifts; (3) get explicit written details on what services and fees are included (meals, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, meds) and refund/lease-exit policies; (4) inquire about recent changes in management and any documented quality improvement plans; and (5) check references from current families in the specific building or floor you expect to use. Given the polarized experiences, due diligence and clear, written agreements about care expectations and remediation paths are particularly important.
