Overall sentiment in the reviews for Gaslight Manor Care Center is highly polarized, with several reviewers offering positive remarks about the facility and others reporting serious, potentially criminal concerns. Positive comments emphasize a quiet, clean environment and cases where staff helped residents — particularly those with mental illness — regain some independence or begin recovery. A number of reviewers explicitly recommended the facility and described it as providing good care for certain residents, especially for shorter-term stays.
However, the negative reports raise significant safety, managerial, and ethical concerns that cannot be overlooked. Multiple summaries allege fraud and defrauding of both residents and vendors, including claims that vendors are not paid and that the facility is unresponsive to vendor communications. There are claims that formal complaints have been filed with the Missouri Department of Senior Services, and explicit warnings not to admit or do business with the facility appear in the feedback. These are serious allegations that suggest problems with financial management and regulatory compliance.
Care quality and resident safety are central themes in the negative reviews. Reported failures include missing medications, missed medical appointments, and broken or absent critical communication systems such as telephones and nurse call systems. Such issues directly impact resident safety and access to medical attention. Additionally, reviewers reported instances of disrespectful or abusive staff behavior, punitive responses when residents or family members raise concerns, and specific troubling comments about how miscarriage care was handled. These reports suggest inconsistent standards of clinical care and serious lapses in compassionate, appropriate response to health needs.
Another major pattern is the facility’s restrictive policies and loss of resident autonomy. Reviews indicate a permission-based model that can be highly controlling — examples include accounts that residents are not allowed to use the bathroom without permission and overall “total control” over residents’ daily activities. Combined with reports of inadequate supervision and inconsistent support, these practices raise concerns about dignity, rights, and adequate staffing or training to respect resident independence while ensuring safety.
Facilities and environment receive mixed remarks: several reviewers describe the building as quiet and clean, which is a positive sign for comfort and infection control. Still, positive facility impressions coexist with accounts of system breakdowns (telephone/nurse call) that undermine safety. The overall pattern suggests that while the physical environment may be acceptable to some, operational reliability and staff practices vary substantially.
In summary, this collection of reviews presents a conflicted picture. Some residents and families are satisfied — citing helpful mental health support, cleanliness, quiet, and successful short-term recovery — while others report severe problems, including alleged fraud, unpaid vendors, critical communication failures, medication and appointment lapses, abusive or punitive staff behavior, and extreme restrictions on resident autonomy. Given the severity of the negative claims (financial misconduct, regulatory complaints, and safety-related incidents), prospective residents and families should exercise caution: verify licensure and complaint history with Missouri authorities, ask for documentation about emergency and nurse-call systems, inquire about staffing levels and training, check references from recent families, and observe care practices during multiple visits and different shifts before making an admission decision.
