The reviews present a mixed but coherent picture of Victorian Place of Sullivan. On the positive side reviewers consistently praise the frontline caregiving staff and the physical environment. Multiple comments describe CMAs/CNAs as hardworking and call the staff caring, helpful, and good; one review explicitly states a resident (Lawana) is well cared for and another says a resident is happy. The facility itself is described as beautiful. These responses indicate that personal attention from direct-care employees and the facility’s appearance are clear strengths.
Care quality and staffing show both strengths and clear gaps. Strengths are focused on direct caregivers — family members and reviewers note helpfulness and caring behavior from the staff who provide hands-on assistance. However, reviewers raise significant concerns about clinical and supervisory coverage: the nurse is described as "rarely there," and the facility is reported to be understaffed overnight. Those comments point to potential gaps in medical oversight and night-time staffing levels that could affect resident safety and continuity of care despite positive impressions of daytime frontline staff.
Dining is repeatedly criticized across the summaries. Multiple reviewers call the food "not good," describe portions as small, and note a high proportion of starches in meals. Others specifically say the menu is repetitive. Taken together, these comments suggest that dining is a consistent pain point — both in terms of quantity (small portions) and quality/nutritional variety (starch-heavy, repetitive offerings). This appears to be one of the most frequently mentioned negative themes.
Activities and programming are another area of concern. The activities director is characterized as ineffective in the reviews, indicating resident programming may be insufficient or poorly executed. That contrast — engaged caregiving staff but inadequate activities leadership — suggests a mismatch in service strengths and gaps in non-clinical resident engagement.
Management and security-related issues emerge as additional themes. Requests for a security guard and the report of being understaffed overnight imply concerns about resident safety and building supervision during off-hours. Coupled with the comment that the nurse is rarely present, reviewers imply weaknesses in administrative oversight and in ensuring consistent coverage for clinical and safety needs.
Overall sentiment is cautiously positive about the people and the place but concerned about operations. The emotional tone toward the direct-care staff and the facility is warm and appreciative, while operational issues — nurse availability, overnight staffing, activity leadership, meal quality, and perceived security gaps — constitute the primary negatives. In short: Victorian Place of Sullivan appears to provide a pleasant environment with dedicated frontline caregivers, but it would benefit from improved clinical supervision, stronger night staffing, enhanced activity programming, better and more varied meals, and attention to security concerns.
