Overall impression Parsons House On Eagle Run attracts strongly polarized reviews: many families report excellent, compassionate care, long-tenured staff, clean and attractive spaces, and engaging programming, while a significant minority report inconsistent care, poor communication, management problems, and lack of resident stimulation. The span of experiences suggests a facility with solid strengths (particularly in nursing and certain caregiving staff) but also notable variability in resident experience tied to specific staff, shifts, or management interactions.
Care quality and staffing A recurring positive theme is the presence of caring, compassionate caregivers and experienced nursing staff. Multiple reviews praise long-tenured employees, low turnover, and staff who anticipate needs, provide quality support during difficult transitions, and deliver strong overnight coverage. Several families singled out nurses and specific staff members as lifesavers who provided outstanding end-of-life care or supported residents through moves. Conversely, other reviews describe inconsistent care quality: reports of neglect, insufficient grooming assistance (shaving, hair, glasses), residents left mostly in their rooms, and at least a few accounts of staff perceived as lazy, rude, or unqualified. This variability often appears shift-dependent and is sometimes linked to management behavior or scheduling inconsistencies.
Management, communication, and responsiveness Feedback about administration and management is sharply divided. Many residents/families describe helpful, communicative administrators who follow up by phone and email and resolve issues quickly. Others report troubling patterns: poor call handling, repeated hang-ups with no callbacks, staff blaming families, and administrators who are unresponsive or dishonest (including at least one claim that the director lied about care). A few reviews go further, alleging attempts to remove negative reviews online and a serious complaint about a broken Medicaid promise/eviction notice. These negative reports emphasize a lack of accountability and inconsistent leadership as central concerns that undermine otherwise positive aspects of the facility.
Activities, engagement, and memory care Activity programming receives mixed reviews. Several accounts praise personalized and varied activities—music, golf-related programming, arts & crafts (painting, flower arranging), games, movies, guest performances, outings, and weekly rides—along with an active memory-care unit that is small and secure. Families report improved social lives and residents thriving where activities are robust. In contrast, a number of reviews describe a dearth of stimulation: no weekend activities, minimal staff interaction with residents (staff leaning or watching TV), and residents sitting lifeless or becoming withdrawn. These disparities again point to inconsistent delivery of programming and possible staffing or culture differences between units or shifts.
Facilities, dining, and amenities Facility appearance and amenities are frequently praised: modern interiors, homelike dining areas, beautiful outdoor spaces, secure memory-care with coded access, exercise rooms, and generally spotless common areas. Dining is another strong positive for many reviewers—excellent varied meals, holiday menus, and small notes like dessert-forward servings and ready availability of fruit. Some reviewers mention immediate placement availability and competitive cost. However, a subset of families felt the decor was misleading relative to the level of care, and a few described the resident areas as very small, depressing, or lacking change of scenery.
Patterns and notable risks A dominant pattern across reviews is polarization: many enthusiastic reports of high-quality, family-like care coexist with serious negative experiences. This suggests local variability—some residents live in a well-run environment with attentive staff and strong programming, while others encounter poor communication, neglect, or administrative failures. Recurrent specific concerns are inconsistent shifts/communication, neglected grooming and stimulation, and allegations of administrative dishonesty or aggressive reputation management. These are substantive red flags a prospective family should investigate directly (ask about staff turnover by shift, weekend programming, grooming protocols, how complaints are handled, and any historical incidents like eviction/Medicaid disputes).
Recommendations for prospective families Given the mix of reviews, prospective residents and families should conduct a targeted tour and ask specific questions: meet nursing staff across shifts, observe mealtimes and an activity period (including weekend programming), request examples of how grooming and individualized care plans are implemented, and speak with current families if possible. Verify how the facility handles complaints, follow-up, and care continuity. Where reviews praise specific staff or administrators, ask whether those individuals remain on-site. Doing so will help determine whether the positive aspects noted in many reviews (strong nursing, cleanliness, good meals, active programs) are replicated in the unit and shift that would serve your loved one, and whether the facility has addressed the management and communication issues raised by other families.
