Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed but leans toward serious concern. A substantial number of reviewers praise individual caregivers, memory care staff, and certain services (notably some rehabilitation and therapy offerings), describing compassionate, attentive, and hardworking nurses and aides. These positive accounts emphasize strong community aspects—year-round activities, courtyard access, ice cream stand, prayer groups, games, arts, and transportation—that contribute to residents’ quality of life. Multiple reviewers explicitly recommend the facility, noting clean rooms, helpful staff, good food in some cases, and effective medication administration or fall-prevention education.
However, those positive reports sit alongside numerous, repeated, and severe complaints about chronic understaffing and neglect. Many reviewers describe residents left unattended for hours, in soiled briefs, or unable to get assistance after a fall. Specific instances include family members finding loved ones on the floor and having to call 911 because no staff were available, residents’ eyes, catheter and stoma areas reported as unclean with signs of infection, and repeated accounts of missed basic hygiene and repositioning that create risk for pressure sores. These are not isolated comments but recurring themes across multiple summaries, indicating systemic staffing and supervision problems.
Staff quality is described as highly inconsistent. While some caregivers are called wonderful and go “the extra mile,” other descriptions reference untrained, rude, illiterate, or unprofessional aides and agency nurses. Reviewers repeatedly raise concerns about use of agency or temporary staff, lack of proper training and supervision, aides inappropriately changing job titles, and staff found in lounges on phones or gossiping. This variability appears to map to different units or shifts: memory care and some rehab units receive frequent praise, while other floors and shifts are described as dangerous or neglected.
Facility condition and housekeeping also show mixed reports. Several reviews describe a clean, well-kept environment with no hallway clutter, nice courtyards, and attractive amenities. Conversely, many others cite dirty resident rooms, unswept floors, spillage from feeding or tubes left on floors, trash not emptied, dirty mirrors and sinks, and even mice. Small, dated rooms and uncomfortable furniture are recurring complaints, along with a clinical, uninviting atmosphere in common areas. Repair needs and a sense that the building is past its prime appear in multiple accounts.
Dining and activity programming also receive divergent feedback. Numerous reviewers praise varied activities—music visits, chair exercise, craft events, and community gatherings—and some find dining options good with cafeteria ordering and enjoyable food. Others describe the food as cold or “prison-grade,” frequent spills and messy feedings that are not promptly cleaned, and residents left hungry. Shift-change gaps can result in delayed meals and inadequate post-meal cleaning. Overall, activities are a clear strength for some residents, while meal service and dining quality are inconsistent.
Management, communication, and safety oversight emerge as significant concerns for many families. Multiple reviewers report poor responsiveness from administration, slow or nonexistent follow-up on incidents (including theft and missing items), and difficulty reaching senior personnel. Several accounts allege that incident reports were ignored, security failed to investigate thefts adequately, and leadership appears profit-driven or indifferent. The facility’s cited CMS Much Below Average / 1-star rating in reviews reinforces the perception that systemic quality and oversight issues exist.
Patterns across reviews suggest two important takeaways: 1) Care quality and environment at St. John’s Home are highly variable by unit, shift, and even individual staff—memory care and some rehab areas are often praised while general care units are frequently criticized; and 2) the dominant driver of negative experiences is understaffing and inadequate supervision, which cascades into hygiene failures, safety incidents, missed care, poor housekeeping, and poor incident response. Several reviewers explicitly warn against sending loved ones due to safety and neglect, while others recommend the facility because of strong staff and activities.
In summary, prospective families should expect a mixed picture: there are genuine strengths—caring individual staff, good programming, some well-run units, and useful on-site amenities—but also serious, repeatedly reported weaknesses centered on staffing levels, supervision, hygiene, safety, and management responsiveness. Visiting in person, asking detailed questions about staffing ratios for the specific unit of interest, reviewing recent CMS reports, and speaking with current resident families are prudent steps for anyone evaluating St. John’s Home. The breadth and severity of the negative reports warrant careful scrutiny before placement, especially for residents with significant medical or mobility needs.
