Overall sentiment: The reviews for The Estates at St. Louis Park are highly polarized but skew strongly negative when aggregated. A substantial number of reviews describe severe problems with cleanliness, basic hygiene, staffing levels, safety, and care quality. At the same time, several reviewers report positive changes tied to new leadership, praise particular nurses or aides, and describe an improved, more communicative management team. This creates a pattern of extremes: some families describe a facility that has been turned around and provides attentive care, while many others describe conditions they consider unsafe and neglectful.
Care quality and staffing: The dominant theme across reviews is understaffing and inconsistent, often poor, caregiving. Reported issues include long wait times for assistance, call buttons that are broken or ignored, aides spending time on computers rather than assisting residents, and direct-care staff that are unresponsive or rude. Multiple reviews cite examples of rough or undignified care (e.g., rough diaper changes, soiled bedding left unchanged), forced medication attempts, and a claim that a resident was insulted by staff. There are also several alarming reports of serious adverse events: a patient who fell after being refused a hospital bed with rails, residents left on the floor, and at least one MRSA infection noted. Several reviewers explicitly describe a lack of visible staff at times, particularly evenings and nights, and frequent staff turnover that undermines continuity of care. Conversely, some families praise specific nurses and note attentive care and good medication management, indicating variability in staff performance.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: Cleanliness and basic facility maintenance are the most frequently cited issues. Reviews report bugs and mice (including bait and mouse traps visible), human waste and feces odor in rooms and hallways, dried blood on resident floors, filthy elevators, sticky floors that smell of urine, graffiti, and cigarette butts on the grounds. Personal items are reported scrambled or missing by multiple families, and rooms are described as tiny and overcrowded (two hospital beds in small rooms, belongings piled in corners), creating privacy and dignity concerns. Broken call buttons, uncovered vents, and unsecured or outdated common spaces add to safety worries. While some reviewers mention remodeling of the first floor and a warm entry area, the overall picture for many reviewers is an older, poorly maintained building that feels institutional or like an 'asylum.'
Dining, nutrition, and therapies: Nutritional concerns appear repeatedly. Complaints include terrible food, meal misrepresentation (examples: ordering a turkey sandwich but receiving dried pasta), dried-out meals, inappropriate liquid diets, and reports of malnutrition. One review alleges that physical and speech therapy were stopped, and others mention that therapies were not adequately continued. Positive mentions exist — some residents 'eating well' and homestyle food — but the number and severity of negative meal and nutrition reports merit attention.
Infection control and health safety: Several reviews point to inadequate infection control: MRSA was reported, staff not wearing masks properly, lack of infection-control signage on resident doors, and visible soiled areas. One review claimed the facility had no water for a prolonged period (6PM to 10AM), creating major risks for hygiene and clinical care. The absence of cameras or other surveillance and reports of security intrusions raise additional safety concerns for residents.
Management, communication, and administration: Reviews are split on leadership. Multiple families praise management and the Director of Nursing (DON), reporting strong communication, attentive follow-up, improvements in staffing and cleanliness, and even attainment of a 5-star or A+ rating in their accounts. Others accuse the facility of being profit-driven, misrepresenting services to insurance, and providing poor communication when items go missing or during end-of-life care. Billing disputes and perceived misrepresentation to insurance are raised — these are serious administrative concerns that some reviewers feel were not handled transparently.
Notable incidents and themes to highlight: Several specific, serious incidents recur in the reviews and should be noted by anyone evaluating the facility: a reported MRSA infection, allegations of residents being neglected to the point of dying alone, refusal of appropriate medical equipment culminating in a fall, episodes of forceful medication administration, visible human waste and dried blood on floors, and prolonged lack of water. These incidents, combined with pervasive reports of uncleanliness and understaffing, led multiple reviewers to call for the facility to be shut down or condemned. At the same time, the presence of multiple positive reviews that mention improved leadership, fixed laundry machines, caring staff members, and better communication suggest that there may be variability over time or between shifts/units.
Conclusion and recommendations: The pattern across reviews is one of serious, systemic problems experienced by many residents and families, particularly around cleanliness, staffing, safety, and basic dignity. These are not limited to minor complaints but include infection control failures, safety incidents, and intense distress among family members who feel neglected. However, the existence of several positive accounts describing leadership improvements and dedicated staff indicates that there have been efforts toward remediation and that conditions may vary significantly by unit, shift, or over time. For prospective families or referral sources, these reviews suggest exercising caution: perform an in-person visit at multiple times of day (including evenings/night), ask about recent infection control records and staffing ratios, review incident and abuse reports, verify therapy and nutrition plans in writing, and speak directly with management about specific concerns raised here. For regulators or advocates, the volume and severity of negative reports warrant closer inspection of infection control practices, staffing levels, safety protocols, documentation of incidents (falls, medication administration), and transparency regarding billing and transfers to higher levels of care.
