Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: many reviewers praise the facility for its small, home-like memory care environment and for staff members who are caring, attentive, and go above and beyond, while a notable subset of reviews raise serious concerns about staffing levels, consistency of care, safety, and maintenance/cleanliness. Multiple reviews describe an intimate, secure community with individualized attention, friendly aides, conscientious leadership, and good communication from certain managers. These positive accounts frequently highlight that residents appear happy, are well stimulated, and that families feel reassured by the staff and director when things go well.
However, the negative reports are recurrent and substantive. Understaffing is a central theme: reviewers repeatedly note too few aides on duty (examples include reports of only two staff for many residents), which reviewers say leads to delayed responses to calls, inconsistent care delivery, and instances where residents were ignored. Several reviews describe deficiencies in staff training or competence, with staff reportedly blaming residents for problems, yelling at residents, or being ineffective at managing behavioral issues. There are multiple mentions of weight loss and behavioral-management concerns that families feel are not being adequately addressed. Language barriers and poor interpersonal communication are cited in some negative accounts.
Safety and incident reporting are also significant concerns. At least one review alleges a serious fall that led to hospital transfer and eventual death, and other reviews describe injuries or neglect-like circumstances. These accounts are accompanied by complaints of poor or slow communication with families, and concerns about contract/payment pressure when raising issues. Conversely, other reviewers commend staff for quick notification and transparency when incidents occur, which underscores the variability in experience depending on the day, shift, or individual staff members involved.
Facility condition and housekeeping show a mixed picture. Several reviews call the facility beautiful, clean, and well-kept, while others report maintenance problems and cleanliness shortfalls—specifically bathrooms that are hard to keep clean, non-working toilets, warped flooring, and a urine smell in the dining area in at least one account. Room configuration is a frequent practical concern: the facility is described as small-scale with many shared rooms and most rooms lacking private bathrooms, although some rooms do have en-suite baths. These layout constraints are important for families to confirm in person depending on their loved one’s needs.
Personal property management and laundry are recurring issues. Multiple reviewers report lost items including hearing aids, glasses, and an iPhone, as well as mixed-up clothing. These problems, coupled with reports of poor resident hygiene in some cases, suggest lapses in day-to-day routines and tracking of belongings. Staff accountability and storage/labeling procedures would be reasonable items to investigate further when considering the community.
Programming, dining, and daily life receive less uniform commentary. Some reviewers say meals are satisfactory and smell good, but several note that activities are limited. The facility’s small size and memory-care specialization are cited as strengths for personalization but also as potential limits on the range of activities available.
Management and recent changes form an important theme. A number of reviews mention a new management team and planned corrective action; some families report that the new leadership is competent, responsive, and improving conditions, while others feel that promised corrections are still pending. Several reviewers single out specific managers or directors as compassionate and communicative. This indicates that management turnover or leadership style is materially affecting resident experience and that some improvements may be underway, though not uniformly experienced by all families.
Cost and access considerations appear in several reviews: the community is described as pricier than some alternatives and there are mentions of Medicaid needs or limitations. For prospective families, clarifying cost structure and any financial assistance options is advisable.
Bottom line: Fox Trail Memory Care Living at South River receives both very positive and very negative reports. Strengths consistently cited are the small, home-like atmosphere, caring individual staff members, memory-care focus, and in many cases responsive leadership and clean spaces. The most critical and recurrent risks are understaffing, inconsistent staff competence, safety/incident concerns, maintenance and bathroom cleanliness problems, and loss/misplacement of personal items. Prospective residents and families should tour the facility multiple times (including different shifts), ask about staffing ratios and training, inspect room/bathroom arrangements, inquire about incident reporting and corrective-action timelines, and request written policies on personal-item management and behavior care plans before deciding.
