The set of reviews for Cardinal Ritter Senior Services is strongly mixed, with a clear split between families who praise the facility, its staff, and programming and those who report serious care failures and management problems. Many reviewers emphasize bright, positive aspects: a new, fresh-smelling building with a comfortable dining area, appetizing meals, piano entertainment, regular activities (games and exercise) and engaged residents. Several comments highlight compassionate, respectful, and informative staff and single out the nurse in charge and some caregivers as especially loving or “angelic.” Practical positives include affordability, proximity to home, prompt tours, and a non-pushy director — features that make the facility attractive to some families and potential residents.
However, an opposing and very concerning theme emerges in multiple reviews that detail neglect and poor clinical oversight. There are explicit allegations of bedsores, residents left screaming without timely assistance, and even references to death and an associated lawsuit. Some reviewers describe nurses texting and drinking wine while on duty. These reports point to severe lapses in direct caregiving and monitoring, and they contrast sharply with the accounts of attentive staff. In addition, reviewers note inadequate restroom assistance and dignity issues for residents, and some families reported that moving a loved one to the rehab wing resulted in noticeably worse care — suggesting inconsistency between units or shifts.
Management and staffing behavior is another recurring and divisive topic. Positive comments about leadership are outweighed in several summaries by accusations of poor administration: firing staff to hire friends, high turnover, long-tenured employees quitting, negative leadership and low morale. These personnel and leadership concerns provide a plausible explanation for the reported inconsistencies in care quality. When long-term staff leave and new or transient staff replace them, continuity of care and institutional knowledge can be disrupted, which may lead to both the positive experiences (when compassionate staff are present) and the very troubling negative incidents reported.
There are also practical financial and operational concerns raised: at least one reviewer claimed they were billed for two rooms totaling $27,000, indicating potential billing or contract disputes that families should scrutinize. Multiple reviewers explicitly stated they would not recommend the facility for family placement or employment, while others express gratitude for the care their relative received, describing visits as highlights even in final days. This polarity demonstrates that experiences can vary widely depending on timing, unit (rehab vs. other units), staff on duty, and possibly management changes.
Taken together, the reviews suggest Cardinal Ritter has meaningful strengths — a new, pleasant environment, engaging activities, and a number of compassionate caregivers — but also significant and recurring red flags around clinical care consistency, serious neglect allegations, staffing stability, and management practices. For prospective residents and families, these patterns recommend cautious, thorough due diligence: conduct an in-person tour (pay attention to the rehab wing if relevant), ask specific questions about staffing levels and turnover, request recent inspection reports and the facility's response to any citations, get written clarity on billing and room charges, inquire about wound-care protocols and incident reporting, and ask to speak with current families or long-tenured staff if possible. For regulators or advocates, the presence of both high praise and very serious accusations in the same facility suggests variability that merits careful monitoring and verification of the most serious claims.
