Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed, with some reviewers offering effusive praise for individual staff members and certain aspects of life at The Estates at Delano, while other reviewers report serious clinical safety, sanitation, and staffing problems. Positive comments frequently highlight the compassion and availability of specific nursing staff (notably a head nurse identified as Casey), the comfort of the small, home-like environment, well-prepared meals and an appreciated chef, and engaging activities. Several families said they felt supported and confident in the care, and at least one account states that care improved after a complaint was raised, indicating the facility can and does respond to concerns in some cases.
However, the negative reports are consequential and recurring. Multiple reviews allege medication management failures — including undocumented medication changes, missed medications, and at least one medication-related adverse event that required hospital admission. Staffing shortages are a repeated theme and are linked to concrete harms: unanswered call lights, delayed assistance, missed showers, and even falls. Reviewers describe long delays or lack of responsiveness to phone calls, which compounds families' frustration and undermines trust. Several narratives include alarming examples of neglect, such as patients being left soiled or exposed, strong urine smells in rooms, and reports of feces on a patient; these indicate failures in routine personal care and cleaning/housekeeping protocols.
Safety and infection-control concerns are particularly prominent. Beyond medication and response issues, there is at least one account where staff transported a resident to his apartment in a way that preceded an infection and subsequent surgery—suggesting lapses in clinical judgment or discharge/transport procedures. Multiple reviewers used language such as "unsafe care," and "extreme uncleanliness," which, if accurate, point to systemic problems rather than isolated incidents. Communication and management receive mixed marks: some found the Director of Nursing pleasant and responsive, and others called the facility well-run. Yet other reviews document poor communication, questionable hospice coordination, allegations of bribery, and delayed provision of basic equipment like chairs, indicating inconsistent management practices.
On the positive side, activities and dining appear to be strengths: several reviewers explicitly praised creative programming and meals, and one or more described the chef and food quality very favorably. These elements contribute to a sense of warmth and community for some residents. Staffing also receives praise in many reviews: where staff are present and attentive, families report warm, personalized care and a reassuring level of professionalism.
In summary, the review set describes a facility with distinct contrasts: committed, professional staff and high points in social programming and dining coexist with serious allegations of understaffing, neglect, medication errors, sanitation failures, and safety incidents. The most frequent and significant concerns are medication management and staffing/response failures (missed meds, unanswered call lights, falls), plus cleanliness and personal-care neglect. Prospective residents and families should weigh these polarized accounts carefully: ask for recent staffing ratios, incident records, infection-control protocols, and medication-administration policies; request to meet the head nurse (Casey was repeatedly named positively) and tour the household areas at different times of day to directly observe cleanliness, staff responsiveness, mealtimes, and activities. These steps can help discern whether the positive experiences reflect consistent, facility-wide practices or whether the troubling reports point to unresolved systemic issues.
