Overall impression: The reviews present a strongly mixed and polarized picture of Supportive Living Solutions. Several reviewers praise specific employees and aspects of the service, describing staff as helpful, respectful, and professional in certain instances and naming standout individuals (Curtis and Liz) who provided notably positive support. At the same time, many other reviews raise serious and recurring concerns about safety, care quality, cleanliness, communication, and management responsiveness. The coexistence of strongly positive and strongly negative sentiments points to inconsistent service delivery across staff, shifts, or time periods.
Staff and care quality: Reviews highlight a bifurcation in staff performance. On the positive side some residents and family members report respectful, professional behavior, discreet handling of issues, and useful weekly Line support; specific staff members (Curtis, Liz) receive direct praise for being helpful and effective. On the negative side there are multiple, serious allegations including rude caretakers, abusive staff toward clients, staff dishonesty (lying to residents and outside care providers), and claims that staff “pretend to care.” Most alarmingly, medication errors are explicitly mentioned, including incorrect dosing and a lack of acknowledgment by staff or management when errors occurred. These statements indicate potential safety risks for residents and a failure of accountability systems when mistakes happen.
Facilities and environment: Several reviewers describe cleanliness and environmental problems. The exterior and the parking lot are called dirty, and smoking in hallways is reported, which raises concerns about enforcement of no-smoking rules and the general upkeep of common areas. Conversely, one outside cleaning contractor is singled out positively for doing a good job, which suggests that cleanliness efforts may be uneven or limited to particular areas or contractors rather than consistently maintained by in-house staff.
Communication, management, and services: Communication and management responsiveness are recurring pain points. Multiple summaries mention uninformative communication and a perceived lack of acknowledgment from staff and management, especially following serious incidents like medication mistakes. Reviewers also report cost-focused billing practices, implying that financial priorities may be given precedence over care quality. Budget cuts were reported to have led to the loss of ILS (Independent Living Support) services, indicating reductions in available programming or assistance that previously supported residents. These concerns together suggest systemic issues with transparency, resident advocacy, and continuity of care.
Patterns and variability: A major theme is inconsistency. Some reviews describe Supportive Living Solutions as an “awesome place” with “great staff” and “excellent customer service,” while others call it “horrible,” “unsafe,” and advise people to “avoid/stay far away.” The named praise for individual employees alongside broad accusations of abuse, dishonesty, and safety lapses suggests that a minority of staff may provide high-quality, attentive care, but that institutional problems (policy enforcement, training, supervision, staffing levels) lead to variability in resident experiences.
Implications and priorities to address: The most urgent red flags from these reviews are medication errors, abuse allegations, and staff dishonesty — issues that directly affect resident safety and trust. Secondary but still important concerns include poor communication, billing practices perceived as cost-driven, diminished services due to budget cuts, and environmental cleanliness/smoking policy enforcement. Taken together, these themes point to the need for stronger oversight, transparent incident reporting and resolution, consistent staff training (especially on medication administration, abuse prevention, and resident communication), and management responsiveness to complaints.
Conclusion: Reviews of Supportive Living Solutions reveal a facility with notable strengths tied to particular staff members and some support services, but with repeated, substantive criticisms that raise safety and quality-of-care concerns. The most prevalent and serious issues — medication mistakes, abusive or rude staff, lack of management accountability, and inconsistent service levels — warrant immediate attention from leadership to protect residents and restore confidence. Until systemic problems are addressed and consistent performance demonstrated across the organization, prospective residents and families should weigh the positive individual reports against the documented safety and management concerns.
