Overall sentiment is mixed but leans toward concern due to repeated reports of cleanliness and pest problems despite clear strengths in the resident community. Multiple reviewers emphasize that other residents are kind, supportive, and that loved ones enjoy living at St Andrews of Jennings II. However, these positive social aspects are consistently outweighed by complaints about the physical condition of the facility and hygiene issues.
Care quality and staff: The reviews do not provide direct commentary about caregiving staff, professionalism, or specific care services. The positive remarks focus almost exclusively on the resident community rather than on staff or clinical care. Because there is little to no explicit information about staff responsiveness, medical care, or administrative support, those areas remain uncertain based on the available comments.
Facilities, cleanliness, and pest control: The most prominent negative themes are the facility’s physical condition and significant cleanliness problems. Reviewers describe the interior as run-down and characterize the environment as 'dirty' or 'nasty.' While one note indicates hallways are 'somewhat clean,' that phrasing suggests inconsistent or partial cleaning rather than consistently maintained common areas. The most serious and repeated complaint is the presence of roaches and a broader pest issue; reviewers mention roaches explicitly and that residents are using consumer pesticides like Raid. Pest infestations raise both comfort and health concerns and indicate a need for formal, professional pest control and ongoing preventative maintenance. The combined reports of run-down interior, dirtiness, and pests point to deficiencies in building maintenance and housekeeping.
Living spaces and amenities: Apartment size is a recurring concern—units are described as very small. There is also a specific lack of outdoor seating mentioned, which affects residents’ ability to use outdoor spaces for fresh air, socializing, or recreation. Taken together, small living spaces, limited outdoor amenities, and a deteriorated interior suggest the facility may not meet expectations for comfort, accessibility, or lifestyle for some prospective residents.
Management, dining, and activities: There are no direct remarks in these reviews about dining quality, organized activities, or management responsiveness. The absence of commentary on these topics means prospective families should actively inquire during a tour. Given the clear issues with cleanliness and pest control, it would be prudent to ask management about housekeeping routines, pest management contracts, maintenance schedules, and any plans for renovations or improvements.
Conclusion and recommendations: The reviews portray a community with strong interpersonal qualities among residents—many people feel welcomed and have loved ones who enjoy living there—but also serious, recurring concerns about the facility’s physical condition, cleanliness, and pest control. Prospective residents and families should weigh the social benefits against the potential health and comfort drawbacks. Recommended next steps before deciding: schedule an in-person visit at different times of day to inspect hallways and apartments, ask management for documentation of pest-control measures and recent service history, inquire about cleaning and maintenance protocols, confirm apartment dimensions and layouts, and request references from current families. These checks will help verify whether reported problems are being addressed and whether the facility’s strengths align with the prospective resident’s priorities.
