Overall sentiment in the reviews for Brownstown Forest View Assisted Living is highly polarized, with a substantial number of very positive reports praising individual caregivers and select supervisors, and a roughly equal number of strongly negative reports alleging serious safety and management problems. Many families describe the facility as clean, homelike, small, and offering good value — with inclusive pricing that covers meals, laundry, and activities. At the same time, a recurring cluster of reviews raises severe concerns about care quality, safety, and administration that suggest inconsistent standards of care and significant variation over time and between shifts.
Care quality and safety are the most frequent and consequential themes. Positive reviewers note compassionate, attentive staff who know residents by name, timely medication delivery, engaging activities (bingo, Senior Prom, arts, outings), and therapy services (OT/PT) along with end-of-life care. Several front-line employees and supervisors receive repeated praise by name (Diane, Toni, Michelle Dunn, Jaimie Collop, Ashley Harrell, Mark, Courtney), and many families report that their loved ones are happy, well cared for, and enjoy a family-like community. Conversely, negative reviews describe repeated resident falls, removal of mobility aids (walker reportedly removed from a resident), lack of appropriate lifting equipment (no hoyer lift), residents left on floors or soaked in urine, bedsores, medication mismanagement, and even hospital transfers and deaths. Multiple accounts claim that responses to call buttons are slow or absent and that after-hours coverage and phone responsiveness are poor. These reports point to staffing levels and clinical training as central drivers of safety risk.
Staffing and management emerge as a clear dividing line in the reviews. Positive accounts emphasize staff who "go above and beyond," supervisors who respond and advocate, and a small-facility feel that enables personalized care. Negative accounts consistently cite understaffing, high turnover, and hiring of untrained or uncertified staff. Several reviews attribute a decline in quality to changes in ownership or management (mentions of new owners Nathan and Tomas and a new administrator named Florence criticized), and some state that formerly strong staff were replaced, producing a noticeable drop in professionalism and clinical competence. Communication failures from administration are frequently mentioned: families report unreturned calls, inaccessible managers, poor follow-up, and after-hours phone/buzzer issues. More alarming are repeated allegations that management refused to inform families about hospitalizations or deaths, ignored court/protective orders, and even threatened to call police when families demanded information.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and pests show mixed reports. Many reviewers describe the building as clean, odor-free, and well maintained, with comfortable, fully furnished rooms and pleasant common areas. Dining in positive reviews is described as restaurant-style with a decent menu and accommodation for picky eaters. However, other reviewers report dirty rooms, soiled bedding and clothing, unwashed pillowcases, and allegations of pest infestations (bed bugs, ants, scabies, ticks) and poor housekeeping. Food quality is another divided topic: some praise the meals and inclusive dining, while others describe poor, processed high-sodium items and unappealing sandwiches.
Activities and social life receive generally positive mentions from many families who report active programming — Bingo with prizes, dances and a Senior Prom, arts and exercise classes, outings and field trips, and staff who encourage engagement. Nonetheless, some reviews say activities were minimal, repetitive, or had tiny prizes, and others say activity programming declined after staff turnover. The consensus is that activities are a strength when staffing is stable and engaged; they suffer when staffing is stretched.
Administrative and legal concerns are recurrent in negative reviews. Several accounts describe billing issues, perceived deception about pricing or services, rent increases, and a feeling that occupancy or revenue is prioritized over resident welfare. There are multiple allegations of HIPAA/privacy violations, unprofessional gossip at nursing stations, restriction of visitors, and uncooperative behavior from management when families raise concerns. Some reviewers explicitly call for state investigations or closure, pointing to an accumulation of safety incidents and alleged regulatory violations. In contrast, other reviewers mention a positive inspection history (2013 5-Star Excellence Award, no violations in 2013), indicating that earlier records were favorable.
Patterns and practical takeaways for prospective families: reviews indicate strong variability tied to staffing stability and specific personnel. Several named individuals and supervisors are repeatedly credited with excellent care — meeting with these staff, asking about current staffing levels, shift coverage, and clinical leadership (is a registered nurse on site?) are reasonable steps. Families should also verify policies on emergency notifications, involvement in medical decisions, handling of hospital transfers, restraint and wandering protocols, infection control, pest management, and lift/transfer equipment availability. If possible, speak with current resident families, request recent inspection reports, and ask for written policies about after-hours communication, staffing ratios, training/certification of aides, and procedures for falls and incidents.
In summary, Brownstown Forest View Assisted Living generates sharply divided impressions. When stable, well-trained staff and engaged supervisors are present, reviewers describe a clean, caring, activity-rich, value-oriented community that treats residents like family. When staffing, management, or ownership issues arise, reviewers report troubling lapses in clinical care, safety, communication, and professionalism — some alleging very serious outcomes. The facility appears to have both notable strengths and significant risks; the balance for any prospective resident will likely depend on current management, staffing stability, and whether the specific praised caregivers are still employed there.
