Overall sentiment: The aggregated reviews paint a predominantly negative picture of Southridge Assisted Living, with serious and recurring concerns about licensing, clinical oversight, staffing competency, safety, cleanliness, and nutrition. While a small number of reviews identify individual caregivers who are caring and occasionally praise the food and punctual medication administration, the dominant themes are systemic problems that reviewers consider significant enough to advise against placing loved ones at this facility.
Care quality and medication management: Medication management emerges as a major and polarizing issue. Multiple reviewers allege medication mismanagement — pills going missing and specific, high-risk concerns around insulin and diabetes care, including reports that insulin may not have been given. At least one review claims staff were hired off the street with only a single day of training to distribute medications. Other reviews, by contrast, report medications being given on time. This inconsistency suggests variable practices and unreliable clinical oversight. The stated absence of licensed nurses on staff compounds these concerns and implies that medical tasks may be delegated to unlicensed or inadequately trained personnel, increasing the risk for residents with complex medical needs.
Staffing, competence, and culture: Staff-related problems are among the most frequently cited issues. Reviewers describe staff as untrained, overworked, underpaid, and in some instances uncaring or unprofessional. Multiple comments characterize administration as toxic or "poison," driven by cost-cutting and profit motives rather than resident care. There are reports of high turnover and alleged retaliation or firing of staff who raised safety or care concerns. Simultaneously, several reviews acknowledge a few capable and caring caregivers — indicating pockets of competent, compassionate staff amid broader instability. Chronic lateness, poor attendance, and workplace drama are also noted and are likely contributors to inconsistent resident care.
Management, licensing, and governance: Several reviews explicitly state the facility is not licensed and that no nurses are on staff. Whether these are official regulatory findings or reviewer perceptions, such statements reflect profound distrust of leadership and regulatory compliance. Reviewers describe management as giving "lip service" to concerns rather than taking substantive corrective action. Opinions on recent management changes are mixed: some mention a management change but still report health declines or dissatisfaction, while others fondly recall a former administrator named Virginia who "knew her stuff," implying that leadership quality has declined over time.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: Physical environment and safety are recurring problems. Multiple reviewers report a persistent urine smell, soiled briefs left in hallways, and an overall sense of uncleanliness. Safety concerns extend beyond hygiene — reviewers cite incidents of resident threats and a general feeling of insecurity. These accounts raise questions about supervision, behavioral management, and the ability of staff to maintain a safe, sanitary living environment.
Dining and nutrition: Dining receives mixed but predominantly negative feedback. Several reviewers criticize the food as being "all carbs," lacking sufficient protein, and contributing to malnourishment for some residents. At least one reviewer, however, describes the food as "very good." The pattern suggests inconsistent meal quality and nutritional planning; for residents with increased protein needs or dietary restrictions (for example, those with diabetes), such inconsistency may be harmful.
Overall patterns and recommendation: The reviews reveal a consistent pattern of systemic issues — inadequate clinical oversight, unstable and undertrained staffing, toxic administration, safety and cleanliness problems, and inconsistent nutrition — that together form a risk profile many reviewers find unacceptable. While isolated positive comments indicate some individual caregivers perform well and some residents may receive adequate service at times, the volume and severity of negative reports lead to an overall recommendation against placing vulnerable loved ones at this facility until demonstrable, sustained changes are made. Reviewers urge caution and, in some cases, call for regulatory intervention or closure.
Actionable concerns for families and regulators: Based on the reviews, the highest-priority concerns are licensing status and presence of qualified clinical staff (nurses), documented medication administration practices (particularly for insulin and other high-risk drugs), staffing levels and training protocols, incident reporting and whistleblower protections, nutrition and meal planning, and environmental cleanliness. Prospective families should seek documentation of licensing and staffing, ask for current medication and incident audits, tour the facility for cleanliness, and speak with multiple families and staff about turnover and managerial responsiveness before making placement decisions.
