Overall impression: The reviews paint a strongly mixed picture of Saint Therese Senior Living of Woodbury. Many reviewers consistently praise the facility's physical environment and amenities — a modern, spacious, and attractive campus with a chapel, saltwater and therapy pools, a large gym, theater, library, bistro, and multiple inviting common areas. Several families report excellent transitional and rehabilitative outcomes, citing helpful physical, occupational, and speech therapy and restaurant-style dining. The community atmosphere, daily Mass, live music, and a host of activities contribute to an appealing, home-like environment for many residents. Multiple reviewers singled out specific staff members (for example, Caroline Cadalbert, Mandy, Mary, Kaye, Ellen) as exceptionally helpful, compassionate, and effective during transitions and care episodes.
Care quality and safety: Despite the facility's strong physical and programmatic features, a significant portion of reviews raise serious concerns about care quality, safety, and consistency. Recurring themes include understaffing, high staff turnover, and irregular staffing patterns that lead to uneven care. Numerous reports describe slow or non-responsive call-button response, delayed assistance after falls, and at least some instances of residents being left unattended for long periods — including an extreme account of a resident being down for 24 hours. Medication administration errors and delays (including missed insulin, meds not sent to pharmacy, medication allergy mistakes, and forced medication without explanation) appear repeatedly. Several reviewers also reported procedural lapses such as not using gloves for injections or signing DNRs without family consent, which amplify safety concerns.
Staff behavior and management: Reviews show a bifurcated staff picture. On one hand, therapists, many nurses, social workers, and specific caregivers are described as outstanding, kind, and professional; these staff members often made positive rehabilitation and transition experiences possible. On the other hand, a sizable group of reviews accuse aides and attendants of being rude, inattentive, rough, distracted (e.g., on phones), and in some cases abusive or unprofessional (yelling, swearing, or hiding call lights). Families frequently attribute these problems to poor leadership, inadequate training, burnout, and a toxic work environment — and some explicitly describe corporate or ownership priorities as money-driven, with billing and copay disputes reported. Management responsiveness appears inconsistent: some reviewers note swift corrective action when leadership intervened, while others describe repeated administrative confusion, insurance transition problems, and unresolved deficiencies.
Dining and housekeeping: Comments about dining and housekeeping are mixed. Many reviewers praise the restaurant-style dining, attractive meals, and polite servers; others report poor food quality (cold or undercooked meals, small portions, limited menu selections), menu inaccuracies, and dietary safety risks. Housekeeping is described as excellent by multiple families but criticized by others for worn linens and inconsistent cleaning. These contradictions suggest variability by unit, dining shift, or staff on duty rather than a uniform property-wide standard.
Therapy, activities, and community life: Therapy services (PT/OT/SLP) are a clear strength in many accounts. The on-campus therapeutic resources, pools, gym, and organized exercise/balance classes are repeatedly credited with helping residents regain function and return home. Activities — crafts, theater, music, puzzles, social events, and the chapel — are valued and create a warm, active community for many residents, though several reviewers felt activities were limited or unevenly offered. COVID-era communications and safety protocols received praise from some families, indicating that the facility can run coherent infection-control procedures when staff and leadership are aligned.
Patterns and overall risks: The dominant pattern is inconsistency: the same facility is experienced as outstanding and safe by some families and as understaffed, unsafe, and poorly managed by others. The most serious recurring red flags are emergency response failures (call-button delays, falls), medication errors, and reports of neglect or rough handling by certain aides. These issues are often linked by reviewers to understaffing, high turnover, and management/organizational problems. At the same time, high praise for specific clinicians and amenities suggests that when staffing and leadership are functioning well, resident outcomes and satisfaction can be high.
Value and recommendations for prospective families: Cost is frequently mentioned as high (one report cited near $4,000/month), and several reviewers question whether the monetary value matches the variable quality of care. Given the polarized reviews, prospective residents and families should: (1) tour the facility during meal and activity times to observe staffing, food service, and interaction; (2) ask direct questions about staffing ratios, turnover rates, call-light response times, and recent safety incidents; (3) request references from current families and inquire about specific units; (4) confirm medication administration protocols, pharmacy coordination, and documentation practices; and (5) clarify billing, insurance, and admissions consent procedures before committing.
Bottom line: Saint Therese offers an exceptional physical environment and robust therapy and activity resources that many families and residents love. However, substantial and recurring reports of understaffing, inconsistent care, slow emergency response, medication and procedural errors, and variable staff professionalism represent serious concerns. The facility may be an excellent fit when the right care team is in place, but the variability in experience means families should conduct careful, targeted due diligence focused on staffing, safety, and communication before choosing Saint Therese for a loved one.
