The reviews for Elim Wellspring Health Care Center are highly polarized, with a mixture of strong praise for specific caregivers and equally strong allegations of neglect, abuse, and systemic problems. Several reviewers highlighted individual staff members (Jeremy, Kate, Pam, Kylie and others) who provided compassionate, respectful, and attentive care that made families feel their loved ones were treated with dignity. These positive accounts describe a clean facility with pleasant rooms, good privacy, a home-like atmosphere, long-tenured employees, social and spiritual supports (social workers and chaplains), agreeable dining that feels "kitchen-like," and activity programming that is meaningful for some residents. For families who experienced consistent staffing and engagement from activities and nursing, the facility appears to deliver solid long-term care and emotional support.
Counterbalancing those positive reports are numerous and severe negative complaints that raise substantive safety and quality-of-care concerns. Multiple reviewers allege neglectful practices such as staff refusing routine oral care, residents not being bathed unless specifically requested, and blood or bodily fluids left uncleaned. There are repeated accounts of falls and injuries, sometimes involving multiple incidents for a single resident, with families saying they were not informed. Wound care problems, delayed nursing response times, and pain medicine delays (examples of 2–3 hour late doses) recur across reviews. Perhaps most serious are allegations of overmedication and chemical restraint — specific references to Haldol and morphine — and at least one reviewer alleging that these practices contributed to hospitalization and decline. These types of allegations, if accurate, indicate both clinical and oversight failures.
A consistent theme tying many negative reviews together is staffing and management. Reviewers frequently describe being short-staffed and overworked employees, which they connect to rushed or missed care. Several accounts say management failed to adequately investigate complaints, and some family members describe perception of retaliation or bullying by administrators. There are specific claims about hiding negative reviews and insensitive conduct by leadership (including an incident about a head nurse giving away a room), plus at least one named staff member singled out negatively (Todd Lundeen). These management criticisms include assertions of withheld records and poor communication with families — for example, lack of notification after falls, miscommunication about whether placement was short-term or long-term, and confusion tied to external issues (Social Security interference cited by a reviewer). Such systemic management issues compound frontline staffing problems and contribute to families’ distrust.
Facility environment and programming receive mixed but generally favorable comments in some reviews: the building is often described as clean, with no offensive odors, and rooms are appropriately sized. Dining and the chapel are mentioned as positive features, and some reviewers report activity staff who are engaging and treat residents well. However, others report low activity levels, staff being inattentive (activity staff on phones), and a decline in quality after transfers (notably after a move into memory care for one resident). This variability suggests uneven implementation of programs and care across shifts or units.
The reviews also include emotionally charged accusations and calls for regulatory or legal scrutiny. Several families express extreme dissatisfaction — stating the place should be closed, alleging negligence leading to death, or citing plans for legal action. While these are reviewer perceptions rather than independently verified facts, their frequency and severity are notable and represent significant reputational risk. At the same time, many other reviewers explicitly thank staff, say their family members were treated like "family," and recommend the facility for long-term care—illustrating that experiences are not uniformly negative.
In sum, the dominant patterns are (1) evidence of strong, dedicated caregiving by certain named staff and a generally comfortable physical environment for some residents; (2) repeated serious allegations around neglect, falls, delayed medications, poor wound/oral care, and possible overmedication; and (3) managerial and staffing problems that reviewers link to the quality and consistency of care. Prospective residents and families should be aware of both sides: ask specific questions about staffing ratios, medication administration and monitoring, fall-prevention protocols, incident reporting and family notification procedures, care plan review processes, and how the facility investigates complaints. Visiting in person, meeting nursing leadership, requesting recent inspection reports, and obtaining references from current families (particularly those whose loved ones are in memory care or long-term care) would be prudent steps given the variability in the reported experiences.
