Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized: a number of families report very positive experiences characterized by attentive, kind staff, clean facilities, good activities and dietary attention, and an affordable assisted living option that accepts Medicaid; simultaneously, several other families describe troubling lapses in clinical care, communication failures, and management and environmental issues. The pattern suggests the facility can provide high-quality, compassionate assisted living for many residents, but that care and responsiveness are inconsistent and there are meaningful safety and communication risks for some residents—particularly those with higher medical or memory-care needs.
Care quality and clinical safety are major themes. Positive comments highlight caring aides and nurses, PT services that helped residents, long-term continuity (some residents in personal care for nearly six years), and individualized attention such as staff greeting residents by name and accommodating slow eaters. On the other hand, multiple reviews describe serious clinical problems: neglected incontinence care, delayed or ignored call-button responses, hospital transfers for dehydration, and at least one instance of an unsanitary room condition (urine odor and a stained mattress). Several reviewers explicitly stated they moved loved ones to safer or better memory-care settings. These conflicting accounts indicate variability in nursing and medical oversight; while some families felt confident and supported, others felt clinical needs were overlooked.
Staffing, culture, and management perceptions are similarly mixed. Many reviewers praise aides, dietary staff, front desk personnel, maintenance, and activities/wellness staff for being friendly, attentive, and compassionate — some even singled out individuals and praised how the staff made residents feel known and comfortable. Conversely, others reported poor communication from management or social services, unresponsiveness to family concerns (no callbacks), and at least one report of a dismissive head nurse. A recurrent complaint is the facility’s failure to notify families about hospital admissions or major incidents, which exacerbates family distress and undermines trust.
Facility, amenities, and activities receive mostly favorable remarks, with many families noting clean, updated grounds, a welcoming atmosphere, engaging activities, and dietary touches like daily ice cream. However, there are concerns about the suitability of the environment for memory-impaired residents: reports include exclusion from activities, crowding in the dining room, and statements that the memory-care programming was not a good fit. Some reviewers specifically said there is no memory care available or that the memory care was inadequate, which is critical information for families seeking specialized services.
Communication policies and administrative decisions are a distinct area of concern. Several reviews call out the removal of landlines and an increased reliance on digital communication, describing this as a barrier for residents and families who depend on traditional phones or who do not use internet-based methods. These changes were viewed by some as cost-cutting and “inhumane,” and they amplified already-frustrating experiences of poor communication from staff and management. The intake process was described as extensive and emotionally challenging by some families, and there were comments implying financial priorities sometimes influenced care decisions.
In summary, Braemar at Medford appears to deliver excellent, compassionate assisted living for a subset of residents, especially in areas like personal attention, activities, dietary accommodation, cleanliness, and affordability (Medicaid acceptance). At the same time, multiple, recurring serious issues—poor family communication, inconsistent medical oversight, neglect incidents, call-button delays, and problematic policy changes like landline removal—create safety and trust concerns for other families. Prospective residents and families should verify the unit-level staffing and nursing oversight, ask specifically about memory-care availability and programming, confirm policies on resident communication (landlines, phones, callbacks), inspect resident rooms for cleanliness and odor control, and get clear assurances on how hospital transfers and family notifications are handled. These targeted questions can help determine whether the facility’s strengths align with a given resident’s needs and whether the specific risks reported in some reviews have been addressed.
