Overall sentiment in these review summaries is predominantly positive but with notable and serious negative reports that prospective residents and families should be aware of. Many reviewers praise The Nebraska Masonic Home for high-quality and superior care, repeatedly calling out compassionate, loving staff and a family-like atmosphere—especially in the Special Care Unit. Multiple summaries describe the environment as peaceful and homelike, with residents treated respectfully and staff seen as wonderful, friendly, and welcoming. Facilities are consistently highlighted as a major strength: the building is described as beautiful, historic, and architecturally impressive (exceptional masonry craftsmanship), with well-kept grounds and a very clean environment. Reviewers also note a strong philanthropic foundation supporting the place and an engaging activities team that contributes to resident happiness and a sense of community.
Care quality is a recurring positive theme: words like "superior care," "excellent care," and direct praise for the Special Care Unit indicate many families feel the facility provides a safe, appropriate level of care—some even calling the decision to place a loved one there the "right decision". However, there are serious counterpoints in the reviews. A small but significant set of comments reports problems around care transitions and end-of-life expectations: one summary states that comfort care was provided but characterized as "not hospice," and another describes a poor transition with insufficient monitoring after a return to the facility that was followed by a resident's death. These accounts also include complaints about poor communication and lack of updates to families, which represent important red flags that contrast sharply with the otherwise positive descriptions of day-to-day care.
Staff and management impressions are mixed. On the positive side, many reviews emphasize loving, family-like staff who make residents feel at home and safe. Conversely, several reviews note staff who were "not compassionate," difficult to work with, or focused primarily on the power-of-attorney (POA) perspective, with restricted family visits reported in some cases. There are also mentions that employees are treated poorly, suggesting possible staff morale or management issues that could affect continuity and quality of care. Poor communication and lack of updates are specifically cited as management or operational weaknesses, and these criticisms are tied to the most serious negative outcomes described by reviewers.
Facilities, activities, and atmosphere receive uniformly strong praise. The home is described as a beautiful, historic venue with notable masonry and a peaceful campus that many reviewers say feels like home. The activities team is singled out positively, contributing to resident happiness and engagement. While many of the practical daily-living aspects are applauded, dining was not mentioned in the provided summaries, so there is insufficient information to assess food service quality.
Notable patterns and practical takeaways: the dominant impression is of a well-maintained, attractive facility with many caring staff and strong programs that make it a desirable retirement or long-term care environment. At the same time, there is at least one very serious negative account (a one-star review) involving perceived inadequate monitoring after a transition and a fatal outcome, plus repeated mentions of poor communication and family visitation restrictions. Prospective residents and families should weigh the generally positive consensus about staff, environment, and activities against the reported communication and transition concerns. Reviewers’ comments suggest it would be prudent to ask administrators about policies and protocols for care transitions, monitoring frequency, hospice vs. comfort-care distinctions, family communication and visitation policies, and staff turnover or morale before making a placement decision.
