Overall sentiment about Addington Place of Shoal Creek is highly polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility's physical environment, individual caregivers, and specific programs: many describe a beautiful, bright, well-kept building with attractive gardens and secure outdoor spaces, private and comfortable rooms, and a smaller, home-like setting that some families find very reassuring. Several individual staff members receive repeated, effusive praise (notably Tonya/Tonya Bindewald, Paula, Margarita, Tanya, Rose and a few others) for going above and beyond, providing compassionate, personalized care, proactive communication, and help with transitions. Positive reviews highlight successful rehab outcomes, meaningful activities (manicures, facials, church outings, local trips, art activities), reliable transportation, and occasions when family members experienced peace of mind and clear improvements in their loved ones.
However, an equally large and vocal group of reviewers report serious and recurring problems that substantially affect safety and quality of life. The most consistent negative theme is chronic understaffing and high turnover: families describe being short-staffed to the point of neglect (examples include bathing and laundry not done for nearly two weeks, long call-light delays, and situations with one caregiver responsible for many residents). These staffing problems are linked to inconsistent care quality — cases of missed medications on arrival, missed showers, inadequate toileting assistance, soiled clothing left on residents, and reports of residents found with very poor personal hygiene. Several reviews detail alarming safety incidents in the memory care area, including unsupervised wandering, falls that resulted in broken legs or hip fractures, and at least one account of a resident's death where CPR was not performed as expected. Families also describe clinical monitoring lapses (for example, inadequate monitoring after pacemaker placement) that raise concerns about medical oversight.
Cleanliness and food quality are other areas with mixed but significant negative reports. While many reviewers say the facility is clean and odor-free, others report filthy conditions — including feces left in rooms, dirty refrigerators, and generally nasty environments — indicating inconsistent housekeeping. Dining receives similarly split feedback: some praise chef-prepared meals and a full meal schedule, while others report cold dinners, kitchens running out of items, overcooked/hard-to-chew meals after chef changes, and a decline in food quality over time. Activity programming also varies: several reviewers commend a dedicated activities director and meaningful offerings, but others report limited, repetitive activities with low participation or frequent cancellations.
Management, billing, and administrative issues emerge repeatedly. Multiple reviewers describe poor or unaccountable management, lack of responsiveness to complaints and emails, abrupt administrative changes (new owners/regional managers), and internal staff drama or gossip. Financial concerns include billing errors, incorrect daily care prices, being charged prepaid months and two months' rent debited without refund, a nonrefundable $2,500 fee complaint, and perceived extra/hidden charges that make the facility expensive and sometimes unaffordable. Some families recount traumatic administrative actions, such as residents being expelled during contagion outbreaks or pressured moves to other facilities. Security lapses are also reported: unauthorized after-hours entries by staff with keys, grocery theft, alleged pill theft, and supposedly nonfunctional cameras, which undermine trust.
Taken together, the reviews portray a facility with strong positive elements — an attractive campus, pockets of excellent, devoted caregivers, meaningful programming when adequately staffed, and genuine success stories — but also serious systemic problems tied to staffing, management, safety, and billing. The pattern many reviewers describe is one of variability: experiences are highly dependent on which staff are on shift and which management team is in place. Several reviewers explicitly note that the facility seemed to deliver good care in earlier years or under certain staff but declined rapidly during periods of ownership transition and staffing shortages. For prospective families this means careful due diligence is critical: ask for current staffing ratios, turnover statistics, recent inspection reports, written policies on falls and infection control, examples of billing statements, proof of staff background checks and health screenings, and references from current resident families. Visiting during different shifts, observing the memory care wing, checking camera functionality where privacy laws allow, and speaking directly with named staff who have positive reviews (e.g., Tonya, Paula, Margarita) can help you see whether the positive experiences documented are representative and whether the facility has addressed the systemic concerns raised by multiple reviewers.
Bottom line: Addington Place of Shoal Creek is a facility with notable strengths — a pleasant physical environment and several highly valued caregivers — but the reviews reveal serious recurring weaknesses in staffing, management, safety, cleanliness, and billing. These strengths and weaknesses coexist, producing widely divergent experiences. Families considering this community should weigh the glowing reports of individual staff and ambiance against the documented safety incidents and administrative problems, and pursue updated, specific assurances from management before making placement decisions.
