Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but points to a clear pattern: strong, compassionate front-line caregiving and an attractive, well-equipped physical environment contrasted with operational and management problems that affect consistency of care. Many reviewers praise the day-to-day staff — CNAs, caregivers, maintenance, activities personnel, and hospitality teams — describing them as caring, attentive, personable, and professional. Specific frontline strengths repeatedly highlighted include personalized attention, anticipation of resident needs, an active social calendar (sing-alongs, live music, drumming, entertainers), therapeutic memory-care programming that uses music, and a maintenance team singled out for quick, excellent work. The property itself receives consistent positive marks: clean, modern, bright common areas and large rooms, multiple amenities (salon, game rooms, enclosed sunroom, walking path), and a décor that many find homey and cheerful. Several reviewers described a warm admission/tour experience and felt their loved ones were treated like family, with some even calling staff "angels." These factors drive many of the positive recommendations and account for why some families consider Bay Harbor a top pick after a visit.
Counterbalancing these positives are recurring operational and management concerns that have materially affected resident and family experiences. Multiple reviews mention frequent administrative changeovers and what reviewers describe as absent or noncommunicative leadership. One director, identified by name (April Prinzing), received specific criticism for a cold or misleading response in at least one account. These issues extend into concrete policy and transparency problems: reviewers report undisclosed or poorly explained policies (for example, a pet policy for memory care that was not disclosed), extra mandatory charges for memory care (a third-tier health-maintenance package), and an application fee (reported as $750 and described as nonrefundable by one reviewer, though it was reportedly returned in that case). Several families also express frustration over what they perceive as misleading communication from management.
Staffing and care consistency form another significant theme. Many reviews note that while some care staff go above and beyond, the community is under-staffed at times, leading to long call-light response times and uneven performance. There are credible reports of basic care tasks being missed for some residents (showering, teeth brushing, clothing changes), and several reviewers raised incontinence-related odors in rooms and hallways as an ongoing cleanliness concern. A subset of reviews escalates beyond operational shortcomings to safety and maltreatment concerns; some families explicitly stated they would not recommend the community for memory care or said it was not a good place to work, and at least one review called for room cameras. The termination of a valued CMA and difficulty recruiting replacements were noted as harming continuity of care and family trust.
Dining and services appear inconsistent across reviewers. Multiple family members praised meals as delicious and homemade, while others described the kitchen and food service as terrible. This split suggests variability by shift, menu, or staffing levels rather than a uniform quality level. Similarly, while many reviewers applaud activities and engagement programming, others commented that not all residents receive the same level of attention in daily hygiene or personalized care, again pointing to variability tied to staffing and management practices.
In summary, Bay Harbor of La Crescent shows clear strengths in its physical plant, hospitality-style amenities, active programming, and a core of devoted front-line employees who create a warm social atmosphere and frequently deliver high-quality, individualized care. However, serious and repeated concerns about administrative instability, transparency around fees and policies, staffing shortages, inconsistent care delivery (including hygiene and incontinence management), and at least some reports of safety or maltreatment significantly temper enthusiasm. Prospective families should weigh the strong positives against these risks: visit multiple times across different days and shifts, ask explicitly about current staffing ratios and turnover, request written clarification of memory-care policies and all fees, inquire how leadership handles complaints, and consider implementing additional monitoring (for example, more frequent check-ins) until leadership and staffing consistency are demonstrably stable. Those already in the community who are experiencing problems may want to document incidents, escalate concerns in writing, and involve advocates or ombudsmen if issues do not improve after discussion with management.
