The reviews present a mixed but sharply contrasted picture of Shiloh Assisted Living. On the positive side, multiple comments emphasize strong, compassionate care: reviewers note that staff were great, that an uncle was made comfortable, and that family members expressed appreciation. The repeated praise for staff and the explicit mention of residents being made comfortable indicate that day-to-day caregiving and personal attention are strengths cited by reviewers. Additionally, the facility's grounds or setting are described as beautiful, suggesting a pleasant physical environment and attractive outdoor or landscaping features.
Care quality and staff performance are the clearest positive themes. Reviewers use phrases such as "great staff" and "good care" and explicitly say that a family member was made comfortable, which points to reliable personal care and an environment where individual residents' comfort is prioritized. The expressions of family appreciation reinforce that staff interactions and caregiving left a favorable impression on those who observed or relied on the facility's services.
Facilities and ambiance are also noted positively, with "beautiful surroundings" called out specifically. That suggests the property and immediate environment are appealing and may contribute to residents' quality of life. However, the available reviews do not provide details about interior facility conditions, cleanliness, dining, activities programming, or medical/clinical capabilities, so no conclusions can be drawn about those areas from the supplied comments.
A major and recurring negative theme is safety and management response. One review alleges drug dealing on campus and describes the business as "trashy," and further claims that management is either denying or ignorant of the problem. These statements raise serious concerns about on-site criminal activity and the facility's responsiveness or transparency when such incidents are reported. The combination of alleged illegal activity and perceived management inaction or defensiveness is the most significant red flag in the set of reviews and markedly tempers the otherwise positive impressions of staff care and the grounds.
Taken together, the pattern is clear: reviewers praise the hands-on care and the staff's ability to make residents comfortable and appreciate the setting, but at least one reviewer reports severe safety issues and alleges inadequate or dismissive management responses. Important gaps remain in the reviews provided: there is no information about dining, activities, staffing levels, clinical/medical services, infection control, pricing, or regulatory history. Prospective residents and their families would be wise to verify security measures, ask directly about incident reporting and management responses, tour the property in person, and speak with current families or residents to reconcile the positive care reports with the serious safety-related allegations before making a placement decision.
