Overall sentiment in the reviews for The Estates at Roseville is highly polarized: a substantial number of families and residents praise the staff, therapeutic services, dining and community atmosphere, while an equally significant set of reviewers report serious safety, neglect, hygiene, and management problems. Positive reviews consistently highlight compassionate, attentive aides and nurses, effective short-term rehabilitation and therapy, good meals (often with two entree choices), and a homelike environment with outdoor garden space and scenic views. Several families emphasize exemplary end-of-life and hospice care, strong teamwork by certain leaders and clinical staff, and smooth transitions following surgery or hospital discharge. These reports portray staff who know residents by name, provide person-centered care, and go above and beyond to help families and residents feel comfortable and dignified.
Conversely, many reviews describe systemic problems that raise safety and quality-of-care concerns. Recurrent themes include long call-light response times (commonly reported as 10–30+ minutes), staffing shortages, and overworked personnel that lead to delayed assistance for toileting, falls, or medical crises. Multiple reviewers recount severe incidents: forgotten oxygen (one account notes oxygen not provided for over 15 minutes), ignored alarms, unattended bathroom falls, residents left in soiled conditions for hours, delayed medication administration (including seizure meds), and emergency transfers to the hospital for infections or blood clots. Some families explicitly attribute deaths or severe declines to neglectful care. Infection issues (UTIs, pneumonia, RSV, norovirus, sepsis) and concerns about infection control are mentioned repeatedly.
Facility condition and cleanliness are another area of clash. Several reviewers praise the building as clean, well-maintained, and pleasantly scented; others describe an old, depressing environment with failing cosmetic elements (peeling wallpaper, dust bunnies in vents), persistent urine or other malodors, ants, and filthy diaper situations. Reviewers also report inconsistent housekeeping and laundry services — for some residents these services are reliable, for others they are insufficient or delayed. The physical plant appears to have undergone or planned updates that were paused during the pandemic, contributing to perceptions of an aging facility in need of renovation.
Care consistency appears highly variable by shift, unit, and individual staff member. While some families describe excellent, person-centered care in memory and skilled nursing units, others report one activity staff member for dozens of residents, minimal one-on-one engagement, and limited activities for memory care residents because of staffing. Therapy/rehabilitation is reported as “just right” and effective in many cases, yet other families note almost zero physical therapy during their loved one’s stay. Reports of third-party/agency staffing create additional inconsistency in continuity and quality of care.
Communication and leadership are a frequent fault line. Positive reviews cite onsite social workers, physicians, and collaborative leadership that address questions and coordinate care. Negative reviews describe unresponsive administrators, confusing or hostile complaint processes, poor human resources practices, and situations where families felt misled by admissions staff (for example, a promised private room that did not materialize). Several instances of poor staff morale, gossiping, or staff giggling while families sought answers were reported, as were problems with scheduling, voicemail/communication systems, and slow follow-up on lost property or billing concerns.
Safety infrastructure and clinical care management receive specific criticism. Reported problems include malfunctioning or disabled call bells and alarms, missing safety equipment (no bed rails or alarms, missing transfer belts), inadequate wound care, unsafe IV or transfer attempts, and medication errors or late administration. Families detailed delayed medical evaluations over holiday weekends and difficulty obtaining timely emergency care. These clinical and safety failures, coupled with long response times, create serious risk to medically fragile residents.
Dining and social life are another mixed area. Many reviews praise the food quality, onsite kitchen, and the variety of offerings. Occasional events and live music are appreciated and cited as mood-lifters for residents. However, low staffing has led to meals not being assisted when needed, infrequent activities, and limited interaction between staff and residents during social times. Memory-care-specific activities are described as minimal in some reports, with one activity staff member serving a large number of residents.
Patterns suggest that outcomes at The Estates at Roseville depend heavily on timing, unit, and specific caregivers. Families report both genuinely outstanding, compassionate, and skilled care and, at times, neglectful, unsafe, or even life-threatening lapses. The pandemic exacerbated staffing and renovation delays according to several reviews, and third-party staffing has sometimes introduced unevenness in care. Given the frequency and severity of negative safety and neglect reports, families are advised to ask specific screening questions when considering placement: current staffing ratios, call-bell and alarm working status, infection control policies and recent outbreak history, approach to medication and fall management, proof of available transfer/hoist equipment and oxygen protocols, responsiveness of administration and complaint escalation procedures, and the presence of a stable clinical leadership team.
In summary, The Estates at Roseville elicits strong praise for compassionate individual caregivers, effective rehabilitation for many, good dining, and pleasant outdoor spaces, but it also has numerous, recurrent reports of serious safety, hygiene, staffing, and management problems. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sides carefully, conduct an in-person visit that tests call-response systems and inspects rooms, and seek clear, written answers about staffing, clinical oversight, and complaint resolution before making decisions. Ongoing family involvement and regular oversight appear to make a significant difference in resident experience according to the reviews.
