Overall impression: The reviews for Nannie's Inn are sharply polarized, with a substantial contrast between strongly positive experiences (frequently referencing a superb director, attentive staff, cleanliness, activities and successful admissions interactions) and grave negative allegations (ranging from poor infection-control and safety practices to disrespectful management and serious clinical incidents). This split suggests inconsistent performance or significant variability in resident experiences depending on timing, staffing, or which members of leadership are involved. Families reported both comforting, dignified final-care experiences and, in other reports, situations that raised immediate safety and regulatory concerns.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Multiple reviewers praised compassionate, invested staff and routine clinical/daily care (bathing, meals, dignity at end of life). Several specific positive notes were made about staff providing a better "final chapter" for residents and about residents appearing happy. However, there are also extremely serious negative reports: allegations of resident deaths, noncompliance with COVID guidelines, improvised infection-control measures (plastic sheeting), capacity being exceeded, and at least one account mentioning a staff member described as being in a drug-induced coma. Reviewers also raised concerns about residents being found sleeping on the floor and about bedrails — both of which are safety red flags. One reviewer noted an ongoing clinical workup for a resident (possible MDS and bone marrow biopsy) and associated VA benefits investigation, illustrating family stress around medical complexity.
Staffing, leadership and management: Leadership impressions are mixed and central to reviewers' narratives. Several reviews singled out the director (Lori) as superb, knowledgeable and very helpful during admissions and transitions; the admissions process and advisor assistance were described as excellent by some families. In contrast, the owner/operator is repeatedly criticized as bully-like and disrespectful toward residents and families. Multiple accounts describe staff being unwelcoming, spoken down to, and in at least one case a nurse allegedly yelling during snack time — behaviors that create fear among residents. Staffing levels were noted as "2 staff 24/7," which reviewers implicitly or explicitly questioned as potentially insufficient given room occupancy and resident needs. Calls for outside monitoring or auditing were made by reviewers concerned about safety and management practices.
Facility layout, rooms and privacy: The facility is small and has a mix of private and shared rooms: one report listed 3 private rooms and 2 shared rooms, while others emphasized that private rooms were often not available and there are no private baths. Shared rooms were characterized as very small, with little privacy; one reviewer explicitly said the facility offers "double only" (no private room option) and expressed distress about privacy for a mother with dementia. Workstations with no windows and limited privacy were also mentioned. These physical limitations contribute to family concerns about dignity and acceptability for residents with cognitive impairment.
Cleanliness, accessibility and activities: Multiple reviewers reported the facility was clean, wheelchair-accessible and offered crafts/activities — features that caregivers typically value. Conversely, some comments stated the facility was "not professionally cleaned" or otherwise raised cleanliness concerns, reinforcing the pattern of inconsistent experiences. Activities were a positive point for several families, and the facility being wheelchair accessible was explicitly noted.
Cost, admissions and logistics: Cost and contract terms factored into decisions for some families. Several reviewers mentioned a high monthly charge and a non-refundable move-in fee; one reviewer explicitly decided against selecting the facility because of cost. Location was another practical concern for some families who found the facility "far from home." At least one reviewer thought the facility was "worth the time and money," underscoring the variability in perceived value.
Patterns, risk signals and recommendations for families: The most significant pattern is inconsistency—some families encountered a highly capable director and caring staff, while others reported management problems and serious safety and infection-control concerns. The presence of both glowing recommendations and urgent warnings to avoid suggest that experiences may vary widely by unit, staff shift, or over time. For prospective families this yields clear actionable questions: verify current staffing ratios and staff training, ask about infection-control policies and any regulatory citations (particularly around COVID measures), inspect room sizes and privacy (availability of private rooms and private baths), request specifics about cleaning practices, and check references from recent resident families. If the safety allegations (resident sleeping on floor, bedrail misuse, improvised plastic sheeting, reported staff impairment) are of concern, ask facility management for documentation of incident reports and for results of any external audits or state inspections.
Bottom line: Nannie's Inn elicits strongly mixed feedback. Positive reviewers highlight a strong director, caring staff, cleanliness, accessibility and meaningful activities — elements that can make it a very good fit for some residents. Conversely, other reviews raise severe safety, management and regulatory concerns that should not be ignored. Families should perform thorough, up-to-date checks (in-person tours, regulatory record review, staffing verification, and direct conversations about infection control and incident history) before making a placement decision, and they should weigh both the positive testimony about staff and routines and the serious negative allegations reported by other reviewers.
