Overall sentiment for St. Andrew's Assisted Living of Bridgeton is highly mixed with strong polarization between reviewers who describe the community as a small, caring, home-like “hidden gem” and those who report serious care, cleanliness, and leadership failures. Many reviewers praise the facility's intimate scale, friendly and attentive frontline staff, and the physical apartment-style layout (spacious units, walk-in showers, large windows, and a single-floor configuration). Positive comments repeatedly cite a welcoming courtyard garden, pet-friendliness, a cozy atmosphere, and social activities such as bingo, crafts, movie nights, and occasional trips. Several families emphasize good, all-inclusive pricing, acceptance of low-income residents, and the convenience of on-site services like in-home therapy, daily PT, and doctor visits as significant advantages. A notable portion of reviewers also explicitly recommend the facility and say their loved ones settled in and received comforting, frequent check-ins from staff.
However, a substantial and vocal minority raise serious concerns that cannot be overlooked. Cleanliness and odor control are inconsistent across accounts: while numerous reviewers describe the place as clean and free of hospital smells, others describe it as filthy, with persistent urine odors and malfunctioning kitchen equipment. Dining experiences likewise conflict: some residents praise the meals and menu variations (including a “breakfast-for-lunch” option and good variety of beverages), whereas others report cold, poor-quality food and broken food-service equipment. Activity programming is another area of divergence — some residents experience frequent, engaging activities led by an activity person and even on-site therapy, while others find the activity schedule perfunctory or simply for show.
Care quality and operational reliability show the widest range of responses and are central to the controversy in these reviews. While many reviewers commend caring and responsive direct-care staff and quick maintenance responses, several reports describe significant lapses: medication distribution errors (including an instance where medications were reportedly not given for three weeks), nurse call button issues at move-in, and allegations that residents who require skilled nursing were being accepted inappropriately. There are also stark accusations about deceptive practices during initial tours, lack of privacy due to doors being left open or routines being strictly controlled (when to eat, sleep, or wake), and inconsistent shift-to-shift communication. These issues have led some families to describe management and clinical leadership as disengaged or incompetent, with a few extreme allegations concerning racist behavior and serious neglect—reports that would warrant investigation by family members and regulators.
Management, administration, and staffing appear to be inconsistent across shifts and over time. Multiple reviews describe excellent, personable staff and attentive leadership at points, while others indicate staff who are “fake nice,” disrespectful, or insufficiently trained. Shift-change communication problems are cited, and some families observed a 50/50 split in staff responsiveness. The building itself is described as older and renovated on a budget by several reviewers: this explains both the positive “homey” character and some of the negative comments about wear, odors, or broken kitchen equipment. The facility's small size and private ownership are attractive to many families seeking a personal environment and lower cost, but that same small scale may limit resources for higher-end amenities or consistent training and oversight.
In summary, St. Andrew's Assisted Living of Bridgeton offers many strengths—small, apartment-style living; an engaged activity program for some residents; patio/garden spaces; pet policy; on-site therapy and physician visits; and affordable all-inclusive pricing. These features make it a good fit for families seeking a budget-friendly, home-like assisted living community where direct-care staff can form close bonds with residents. Conversely, the facility has recurrent and serious complaints around inconsistent cleanliness, food service reliability, privacy, medication administration, and management competence. The polarizing reviews suggest variability in experience that may depend on timing, unit, and specific staff on duty. Prospective families should conduct thorough, repeated tours (including evening and weekend visits), ask for details about medication administration protocols, staff training, shift communication procedures, cleaning/maintenance routines, and documented responses to past complaints. They should also speak directly with current residents and family members about recent experiences and request written policies on admissions criteria (to ensure appropriate level-of-care placement), staffing ratios, and incident reporting. These steps will help determine whether the facility’s strengths align with a prospective resident's priorities and whether any of the serious concerns described by multiple reviewers have been addressed.
