The reviews for Gregory Ridge Living Center present a highly polarized and serious set of concerns mixed with isolated positive experiences. A substantial portion of reviewers describe severe problems with facility cleanliness and pest control — multiple accounts mention mice and cockroaches, persistent odors (including urine), visible trash, and toilets left unclean. These sanitation issues are recurring themes and are frequently tied to broader worries about infection control and the general upkeep of common resident areas.
Safety and care quality are central negative themes. Reviewers report both alleged neglect and active safety incidents: residents experiencing injuries (black eyes, swollen faces, scabs), instances of client-on-client violence, and at least one claim of a loved one being attacked by a staff member. There are also alarming claims about a resident receiving CPR despite a reported DNR, and at least one reviewer linking inadequate care to a resident's hospitalization and subsequent death. Many reviewers describe staff as unresponsive to call lights, delayed to assist residents, or outright refusing help — contributing to an impression of understaffing or misprioritized duties (for example, staff being on personal phones instead of assisting residents).
Communication and management problems are repeatedly emphasized. Families and reviewers report difficulty reaching the facility by phone, unanswered intake lines, unreturned voicemails, and delays in getting information from staff or administration. Several notes indicate that staff either do not know or cannot explain residents' medical conditions, and there are reports of restricted access to information unless a guardian is in place. Management is frequently described as disorganized, unprofessional, or circus-like, with inconsistent rules and poor responsiveness to complaints. Some reviews explicitly say they plan to involve advocacy agencies or call for the facility’s closure.
Staff performance descriptions are mixed and often polarized. On the negative side, reviewers cite unprofessional behavior, gossiping, rudeness, manipulative social work interactions, and ineffective psychiatric care. Medication handling and administration are also noted as concerns in multiple summaries. Conversely, multiple reviewers praise specific caregivers and departments: there are consistent mentions of kind, compassionate, and competent staff members; some reviewers say residents are well cared for and issues are addressed promptly. The dietary department, in particular, receives specific positive remarks — an “amazing dietary manager” and “wonderful food” are called out by several reviewers. These positive reports suggest that care quality may vary substantially by unit, staff shift, or individual caregiver.
Programming and daily life present additional variability. Several reviews complain of very few activities over months and an unreachable activities director, leaving residents with little engagement. Others do not emphasize this problem and instead highlight social warmth and residents feeling like family. Dining reviews are mixed — while some speak highly of food and the dietary manager, other reviewers mention small portions and limited menu variety.
Taken together, the reviews depict a facility with significant systemic issues — sanitation and pest infestations, safety incidents (including allegations of abuse and neglect), communication breakdowns, inconsistent management practices, and potential understaffing — coexisting with pockets of dedicated, caring staff and some departments that perform well (notably dietary). The pattern suggests wide variability in resident experience depending on which staff members or shifts are involved. For prospective residents and families, these reviews warrant caution: they should seek direct, current evidence of pest-control measures and sanitation practices; request written policies on incident reporting, medication administration, and DNR handling; ask for staffing ratios and turnover data; inquire about how the facility addresses resident-on-resident aggression; and verify how the facility communicates with families and guardians. An in-person visit (including inspections of common areas, dining, and resident rooms) and speaking with multiple families currently using the center would be advisable to gauge whether the positive caregiver experiences noted by some reviewers are consistent and whether the serious issues raised by many others have been addressed.
