The reviews for Shepherd of the Hills Living present a deeply mixed and polarized picture. A substantial portion of reviewers praise individual staff members—nurses, aides, therapists, social workers, and front office staff—for kindness, compassion, dedication, and practical help. Many specific names and departments are highlighted for going above and beyond, helping with paperwork, delivering emotional support, running rehabilitation that restored independence, and keeping the facility clean and family-friendly. Several reviewers describe a warm, home-like atmosphere with celebrations, attentive interactions, and a sense that the staff genuinely care for residents. For some families, the facility functioned as the best option in the area: top-notch rehab, smooth admissions, private rooms, and staff who explain care thoroughly were noted as strong positives.
At the same time, a significant number of reviews report severe problems—some amounting to allegations of neglect, unsafe clinical practices, and systemic understaffing. Recurrent themes include long response times to call buttons, residents being left in urine or feces for long periods, infrequent diaper changes, few baths, and dirty or soiled linens. Many accounts describe staff shortages (including claims of only one nurse on duty or no RN coverage at night), overworked and undertrained personnel, and student workers being exploited or underpaid. These staffing issues are linked directly to unsafe outcomes in several reviews: falls, head injuries, improper handling of medical equipment, mismanagement of weight-bearing restrictions, delayed or withheld pain medication, and frequent hospital transfers. Some reviewers made particularly alarming claims, including multiple deaths over a short period and alleged cover-ups or dishonesty from nursing staff after incidents.
Food, activities, and the physical environment also generate mixed feedback. Multiple reviewers praise housekeeping and describe the building as bright and pleasant, while others call the facility drab, depressing, small, or difficult to navigate. Dining experiences vary widely: several people enjoyed meals or found them acceptable, yet an equally large set of reviewers reported burnt, cold, or inedible food, and a dining room that is inconveniently located for some residents. Activity programming is described as limited by some and enjoyable by others; celebrations and emotional support are mentioned as strong points by those who had positive experiences. Complaints about amenities and the removal of features (for example, a bird display) suggest some decline in non-clinical offerings.
Management and communication surface as another divisive element. Some families commend management, social services, and specific administrators for being responsive, informative, and helpful in decision-making. Conversely, many reviews criticize management as uninformative or inaccessible, with department heads described as behind closed doors. Several reviewers raised billing disputes and unexpected charges (including an account of ambulance billing), reflecting a lack of transparency or contested financial practices. Accountability concerns are amplified by reports that staff sometimes gossip, yell at residents, or take photos of sleeping residents—issues that raise questions about professional standards, resident dignity, and oversight.
Patterns emerging from the reviews indicate significant variability in care depending on staffing, shift, and individual employees. Positive experiences frequently hinge on particular staff members or teams (therapy, social work, certain nurses/aides), while negative experiences often correlate with times of understaffing or when inexperienced workers are on duty. Serious safety-related allegations—falls, improper medication management, neglect of personal hygiene, and privacy breaches—are recurring and demand attention. At the same time, repeat endorsements from families who felt supported (clean rooms, compassionate care, good rehab outcomes) demonstrate that the facility is capable of delivering good care under the right conditions.
In summary, prospective residents and families should approach Shepherd of the Hills Living with both cautious optimism and careful scrutiny. Key recommendations for decision-making based on these reviews: directly confirm current staffing levels and RN/night coverage; ask about nurse-to-resident ratios and how call-light response times are handled; seek specifics about training and supervision of student workers and aides; request policies on fall prevention, pain management, and infection control (including MRSA isolation procedures); inquire about meal preparation and dining logistics; and verify billing practices in writing. If possible, talk with current residents’ families and observe multiple shifts to gauge consistency. The facility exhibits clear strengths in compassionate individual staff and rehab capabilities, but the frequency and severity of the negative reports—especially those involving neglect, safety lapses, and inconsistent management—make it essential to validate current practices before trusting the facility with a vulnerable loved one.
