Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed, with several reviewers offering high praise for the facility’s physical plant, community life, and portions of the staff, while an equal or greater number of reviewers report serious and specific concerns about clinical care, communication, management, and safety. Positive reviews consistently highlight the renovated, attractive facilities, active programming, friendly residents, and personable sales/tour staff. Negative reviews describe troubling patterns that affect resident safety and family trust, including alleged unprofessional behavior, insufficient clinical oversight, and poor responsiveness from leadership.
Care quality and safety are among the most frequently raised concerns. Multiple reviewers report medication changes followed by patient falls, a lack of nurse updates to families, and an overall impression that nurses or clinical staff “don’t care” or are indifferent. Reviewers specifically mention the memory care unit as being understaffed, with one or more accounts suggesting that understaffing is creating unsafe conditions for vulnerable residents. These complaints range from delayed or absent responses to calls to specific care failures; taken together they indicate that some families perceive a systemic problem in clinical supervision and fall-prevention practices.
Staff behavior and communication are another recurring theme. Several reviewers describe staff as unprofessional or rude (one review names “Shelly” as exhibiting unprofessional behavior), and many families report ignored callbacks, messages not returned, and insufficient notification about incidents. Multiple reviews state that the facility claims 24-hour availability but that calls go unanswered, which compounds family frustration. Conversely, sales, marketing, and tour staff are repeatedly described as welcoming, informative, and helpful, suggesting inconsistent behavior across departments. This split—positive impressions from the marketing/tour side versus negative reports about clinical and management responsiveness—is a notable pattern.
Management, accountability, and financial transparency are also points of contention. Some reviewers explicitly call for investigations and allege that money has been inappropriately taken from families, while others simply criticize poor management and lack of accountability when issues are raised. Complaints about management intersect with reports of unresponsiveness and of staff mistreatment (both of residents and staff), which some reviewers observed firsthand. These reviews reflect an erosion of trust: families express concern that complaints may not be addressed effectively or transparently.
Facility amenities, activities, and dining receive mixed feedback. On the positive side, multiple reviewers praise the facility as beautiful, newly expanded, with a caring atmosphere and lots of scheduled activities—some call the community “one of a kind” or “phenomenal.” Dining is described positively by some (“great food”), yet at least one review raises a serious clinical-dining safety issue: the chef allegedly refuses to purée food for residents who need it, which could pose a choking risk and indicates a possible conflict between kitchen practices and clinical dietary requirements.
Patterns and contradictions: the strongest pattern is the clear dichotomy between glowing impressions from front-end interactions (tours, sales, first impressions of amenities and community life) and severe criticisms related to clinical care, communication, and management. This suggests variability in resident experiences depending on unit, staff on duty, or individual expectations. The specific and serious nature of certain complaints—falls after medication changes, unwillingness to provide appropriate meal textures, alleged financial impropriety, and repeated unresponsiveness—merits careful attention from prospective residents and families.
Recommendations for families based on review patterns: ask specific questions during a visit about staffing ratios (particularly in memory care), fall-prevention protocols, medication-change notification procedures, how the facility ensures dietary textures for residents with swallowing issues, and how after-hours calls are handled. Seek to speak with current families in the specific unit you’re considering and request written policies on incident notification and financial charges. For existing families with concerns reflected here, documenting incidents, escalating to leadership in writing, and requesting clarity on investigative and remediation steps would be prudent.
In sum, Immanuel Living appears to offer a high-quality physical environment and a lively community for some residents, but multiple reviewers report serious and specific failures in clinical care, communication, management accountability, and safety practices. The reviews indicate a highly polarized experience: while some families and visitors are effusive about the facility and staff, others report issues severe enough to contemplate moving or to call for investigations. Prospective and current families should probe clinical operations and management responsiveness thoroughly to determine whether the facility will meet their expectations and safety needs.
