The reviews for Mother of Mercy present a strongly mixed picture, with a clear split between reviewers who praise the facility and those who report serious problems. Multiple accounts describe caring, friendly staff and an improved atmosphere after leadership changes: residents appear more engaged, activities are plentiful, recent renovations are appreciated, and some reviewers report comprehensive, quality care and a home-like environment. The facility's on-campus chapel and proximity to a church are noted as meaningful positives, and several reviewers specifically mention that they plan to stay or would recommend checking the place out.
However, a substantial number of reviews raise serious concerns about inconsistency and significant care failures. Recurring themes in negative reviews include high staff turnover and mixed morale, which appear to contribute to inconsistent resident experiences. Some reviewers describe management as uneven — while a few call leadership approachable and the atmosphere improved, others describe managers as bossy or creating a prison-like environment. This management variability seems to correlate with the polarized experiences reported.
Care quality reports vary dramatically. Positive reviews emphasize loving, attentive staff and comprehensive care; negative reviews allege negligent staff behavior, numerous care mishaps, and even severe incidents such as staff yelling at residents and reported evictions. These are not isolated nitpicks but serious complaints that suggest lapses in resident safety and dignity for some individuals. Several reviewers explicitly called the facility the worst nursing home and advised against it, while others called out specific incidents of unprofessional behavior.
Property- and service-related feedback is similarly mixed. On the positive side, reviewers praise renovations, cleanliness in some accounts, available amenities, and services such as meals and laundry. On the negative side, multiple reviewers criticized dining quality — describing meals as mediocre, pre-boxed, cheap, or with missing items — and reported loss or theft of personal belongings, notably hearing aids and clothing. There are also allegations that staff were dishonest about investigations into problems, which heightens concerns about transparency and accountability.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility undergoing change: some reviewers report recent improvements in leadership, staff demeanor, activities, and physical updates, while others continue to experience or recount troubling incidents of neglect, theft, and mistreatment. The most salient pattern is inconsistency — the facility can provide excellent, compassionate care in some circumstances but has also been the site of severe quality and management failures according to other accounts.
For prospective residents and families, these reviews suggest careful due diligence is warranted. Recommended steps include visiting at different times of day, asking about staff turnover and management structure, reviewing recent inspection reports, inquiring about policies for personal belongings and incident investigations, tasting sample meals, and speaking directly with current residents and families about their experiences. The mixed reviews mean that outcomes may depend heavily on staffing stability and which shift or unit a resident is placed in; verify specifics rather than relying on a single positive or negative report.
