The reviews for Franklin Restorative Care Center present a deeply mixed — and at times sharply divided — picture. On one hand, multiple reviewers praise specific staff members (Sue and Emma named directly), highlight helpful and kind interactions, and appreciate regular medical updates. Several reviews acknowledge dedicated nurses, a supportive dietary director, an involved social worker, and conscientious housekeeping. The facility itself receives positive comments about its physical setting: a beautiful location overlooking the Minnesota River Valley and ongoing building/grounds updates that some families and residents appreciate. There is also recognition of positive leadership and administrative efforts from some reviewers.
However, these positive comments are set against serious and recurring reports of lapses in basic resident care and safety. Multiple reviewers describe incidents of staff negligence, including residents being left in soiled clothing and a stated practice or tolerance for residents urinating in their pants rather than being changed promptly. Reviewers allege failures to document injuries — specifically unexplained bruising — and cite at least one major medication error that resulted in an emergency room transfer and a resident being found unresponsive. Reviewers use the term "sentinel event" for at least one of these incidents and indicate that families felt compelled to intervene to secure appropriate medical attention.
Staff behavior and consistency emerge as central themes. While some staff are singled out as compassionate and helpful, a troubling minority are described as uncaring, rude, or even rough and abusive in their handling of residents. Several reviewers estimate that only about 10% of staff provide consistently acceptable care, indicating significant variability by shift or individual caregiver. This perceived inconsistency is compounded by operational issues: repeatedly reported long call light response times (commonly over 1.5 hours, with one instance exceeding 4 hours), residents not being dressed, and inadequate assistance with feeding that led to weight loss and subsequent hospital transfers. These patterns point to staffing shortages, training gaps, or poor supervision and raise substantial safety concerns.
Communication and documentation problems are also repeatedly noted. While positive medical updates were praised by some, other reviewers report missing or insufficient documentation of injuries and events, forcing families to be the primary advocates and monitors for their loved ones. The combination of critical incidents (medication error, suspected stroke) and poor documentation contributes to a sense of inadequate clinical oversight and accountability. Several reviewers go as far as demanding closure or stronger regulatory intervention, reflecting a high level of distrust by some families.
Facilities, dining, and supportive services receive more consistently favorable mentions: the dietary director, social services, and housekeeping are each recognized for positive contributions. The pleasant setting and recent physical improvements to the building and grounds are clear strengths that enhance the resident environment when care delivery is adequate. Activities and other quality-of-life aspects were not emphasized in the summaries provided, so no strong conclusions can be drawn about programmatic enrichment beyond the cited services.
Overall, the reviews indicate a polarized experience at Franklin Restorative Care Center. There are genuine strengths — caring individuals, some dependable clinical staff, administrative staff who communicate, and an attractive, updated campus. But these are counterbalanced by serious, recurring allegations of neglect, safety incidents, inconsistent caregiving, long response times, and poor documentation. The most significant pattern is variability: families report excellent care from certain people and shifts, and dangerous lapses from others. For prospective residents and families, these reviews suggest exercising caution: verify staffing levels and supervision practices, ask about incident reporting and medication safety protocols, meet direct care staff and managers responsible for training and oversight, and maintain active involvement or monitoring until consistent, demonstrable improvements in care quality and responsiveness are evident.
