Overall impression: Reviews for Concord Place Assisted Living & Memory Care are strongly mixed, with many reviewers praising individual caregivers and certain services, while others report serious lapses in clinical care, cleanliness, billing, and management. A clear pattern emerges of two common experiences: one where families and residents feel well-cared-for, supported, and comfortable; and another where families encountered medication errors, hygiene neglect, billing disputes, and operational problems. These polarized accounts suggest variability in resident experience that appears tied to staffing levels, management stability, and unit/shift consistency.
Care quality and clinical concerns: Several reviewers describe staff as caring, professional, and empathetic, noting that nurses and aides can be responsive and skilled—some families explicitly said care exceeded industry standards or was better than other facilities they had tried. At the same time, a subset of reviews raise very serious clinical issues: medications allegedly were stopped, glaucoma drops reportedly refused, and families said the community charged for meds and administration that were not actually being given. These medication administration and oversight failures are among the most concerning recurring complaints and represent a significant safety risk when accurate.
Staffing, culture, and leadership: Many positive comments highlight individual staff members who are kind, supportive, and prompt in addressing requests, and some reviews credit staff with easing difficult memory-care transitions or supporting families during COVID isolation by arranging video calls. Conversely, multiple reviewers mention high staff turnover, staffing shortages, executive turnover, and the need for more experienced leadership. Those operational gaps are cited as likely causes for inconsistent care, unfulfilled promises from the sales/marketing process, and variability across shifts. Reports of staff socializing with tenants and limited phone presence were also noted, which some families perceived as lack of professionalism or insufficient on-duty attention.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: Praise for the physical environment includes attractive entrances, ample seating, pleasant outdoor areas and walking paths, comfortable rooms (including a two-bedroom option), on-site amenities such as laundry and a beauty shop, and a chef-operated kitchen producing good food. However, opposing reports claim rooms and linens were never cleaned and bathrooms were neglected. There are also complaints about a poorly maintained building and at least one report of room lockout that raised security concerns. This mix of reviews suggests that while the facility has strong physical assets and potential, maintenance and housekeeping consistency are problem areas for some residents.
Dining, activities, and lifestyle: Multiple reviewers appreciate the dining program (chef-operated kitchen) and describe the food as very good. On-site activities—weekly bingo and an activities room—transportation to medical appointments, dog-friendly policies, and community spaces for socializing receive positive mention. For many residents and families these lifestyle offerings are meaningful contributors to satisfaction; for others these benefits are overshadowed by operational problems in care delivery or management responsiveness.
Billing, communication, and admissions practices: Several reviews raise financial and communication red flags: double charges, overcharges, and unresolved balances are reported, along with poor or slow email responses from administration. Some families feel sales pitches overstated what the community could provide and described admissions conversations as deceptive. Executive turnover and inconsistent follow-through compound these concerns, leaving some families feeling unsupported when problems arise.
Memory care observations: Memory care experiences are mixed. Some families report that staff in memory care were caring and did well to ease transitions, while others described the memory care unit as feeling institutional—using the term "asylum"—and said that communication and atmosphere were unwelcoming. This split suggests that memory-care quality may vary by unit, staffing, or timing, and underscores the importance of close assessment for prospective residents needing memory services.
Patterns and takeaways: The reviews point to a community with clear strengths—compassionate individual staff members, attractive and amenity-rich facilities, good dining, and active programming—but also significant operational weaknesses that affect safety and reliability: medication management, housekeeping, billing accuracy, and consistent leadership. The recurring mentions of staffing shortages and executive turnover appear to be central drivers of inconsistent performance. Prospective residents and families should weigh the clear positives (staff who are praised, chef-run dining, transportation, and onsite amenities) against the documented risks (medication errors, cleanliness lapses, billing issues, and reported unwelcoming behavior in memory care).
For decision-making: If considering Concord Place, ask specific, documented questions about medication administration policies and oversight, housekeeping schedules, staff turnover rates, manager/administrator tenure, billing practices and typical dispute resolution, and the staffing ratios in memory care. Seek written assurances and references from current resident families where possible, and, if memory care is needed, observe that unit at multiple times of day. The reviews indicate the community has strong potential and many satisfied families, but also report serious, concrete failures that should be directly addressed before moving in.
