Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed and highly polarized: many families report excellent personal attention, a warm small-home atmosphere, and meaningful activities, while others describe serious operational failures, neglect, and sanitation problems. Positive accounts emphasize individualized care, friendly staff, a close-knit resident community, attractive and bright rooms, and robust activity programming. Negative accounts point to systemic issues: staffing shortages and turnover, inconsistent management oversight, poor hygiene and laundry handling, serious incidents of neglect, and confusing or problematic billing and contract practices.
Care quality and staff behavior are the most frequently contested topics. Numerous reviewers praise nurses and caregivers for being attentive, compassionate, and communicative; several describe the nursing staff as "wonderful," quick to call families, and responsive when problems arise. Specific employees (Housing Manager Veera and Director of Sales Kelly Hurley) are named for being helpful in admissions and navigating logistics. However, an equal number of reviews recount troubling care lapses: residents not bathed for weeks, being left unattended after injuries for days, missed toileting or heavily soiled diapers in bathrooms, unattended call lights, and staff allegedly scrolling on phones. These opposing reports suggest variability in performance that may correlate with staffing levels, shift differences, or turnover rather than uniform facility practice.
Facilities and environment receive similarly mixed feedback. Many families find the building clean, nicely decorated, bright, and home-like with spacious rooms (some with living areas and kitchenettes), fenced outdoor areas, piano and craft spaces, and wheelchair-accessible bathrooms. Conversely, other reports call out stains on carpets, dirty dishes left out, unsanitary bathroom conditions (feces on walls reported), plumbing backups, occasional gas shutoffs, and general building neglect. These competing impressions indicate the facility can be well-kept at times but also suffers intermittent maintenance and housekeeping breakdowns.
Dining and nutrition are another polarizing area. Several reviewers celebrate the meals as delicious, balanced, generous, and accommodating of dietary preferences; activity directors and staff reportedly visit rooms with food for residents. At the same time, multiple families complain about awful or inedible food, cold meals, inconsistent meal preparation, pork served contrary to family wishes, and an unclean kitchen. This split suggests that meal quality and kitchen hygiene may fluctuate, possibly related to staffing or different kitchen shifts/cooks.
Activities and social life show a broad range of experiences. Some reviews describe vigorous activity programs — piano, crafts, seasonal planting, group exercises, coffee breaks, happy hours, and regular events — and note that residents know one another well and enjoy social interaction. Other reviewers criticize a lack of meaningful activities, especially in memory care, where staff reportedly provide minimal engagement and residents appeared less social. Transportation limitations also reduce off-site opportunities for some residents.
Management, administration, and policy issues recur in the reviews. Families report inconsistent management oversight, slow corporate communication, policy reversals (including a smoking policy), and allegations of "bait-and-switch" regarding the size and capability of the memory care unit. Several reviewers raise serious billing concerns: confusing contract language, disputes about 30-day notice versus clauses related to death, and charges that continued after a resident's passing. There are also mentions of a lawsuit payout and claims of dishonesty or blame-shifting by management in some cases.
Memory care specifics are mixed but raise particular caution. The memory care unit is described as small and intimate — which some families appreciate — but also as under-resourced and ill-prepared for certain behavioral needs. Reports include nursing assistants refusing additional memory-care support, staff lacking training for behavioral issues, and allegations of forced or unauthorized moves between units. Some families, however, report that memory care was safe and that nobody wandered off, highlighting the importance of asking targeted questions about staff training, staffing ratios, and behavioral protocols.
Patterns emerging from the reviews point to inconsistency: many positive statements about staff, food, cleanliness, and activities coexist with serious negative incidents and operational failures. This suggests that resident experience may depend heavily on staffing levels, which appear to fluctuate, and on which team or leadership is present at a given time. For prospective residents and families, the reviews strongly suggest verifying current staffing ratios, turnover rates, incident protocols (falls, missed care), laundry and kitchen hygiene practices, memory care training and capacity, and carefully reviewing contract and billing terms before committing.
In summary, Encore Assisted Living and Memory Care at Champlin receives praise for its small-home atmosphere, some highly caring staff members, attractive spaces, and active programming — but it also faces significant, repeated criticisms around staffing consistency, sanitation, care lapses, food variability, laundry failures, and administrative/billing problems. The facility may provide excellent care under the right circumstances, but the variability and severity of negative reports (including neglect and safety/maintenance issues) warrant careful, detailed touring, direct questioning of leadership, and clear contractual protections for families considering placement.
