Overall sentiment: The reviews convey a strongly negative overall impression of Golden LivingCenter - Hendersonville. Multiple reviewers describe serious failures in basic care and safety, creating a pattern of neglect, poor hygiene, and unresponsiveness that appears widespread rather than isolated. The tone across the summaries is one of alarm and dissatisfaction, with several reports pointing to severe consequences for residents, including injury and death.
Care quality and serious incidents: The most alarming themes relate to direct care failures and delayed medical attention. Reviewers allege that a resident with a broken hip was left unattended for as long as six days, and at least one review links inadequate care to a resident death. Repeated descriptions of neglectful care — including residents left lying without assistance — indicate systemic problems in monitoring and responding to acute medical needs. These are not presented as single, minor lapses but as major incidents that raise questions about clinical oversight and emergency response protocols.
Staff responsiveness and communication: A persistent complaint is that staff are unresponsive. Call buttons and phone calls reportedly went unanswered, and family members describe ignored requests for assistance. Several summaries explicitly state that staff ignored calls and failed to respond to clear signs that residents needed help. One review mentions police involvement, suggesting that families had to escalate concerns externally to get attention or resolution. Collectively, these reports point to significant communication and staffing issues that compromise resident safety.
Facility cleanliness and hygiene: Multiple reviewers report poor environmental conditions. Descriptions include dirty facilities, urine-soaked clothing and bedding, and urine-drenched beds. These accounts suggest inadequate personal care routines and insufficient housekeeping practices. The combination of neglect in personal hygiene and general facility uncleanliness compounds the risk to resident health and dignity and is a consistent theme across the summaries.
Dining and dietary management: Dietary issues are another recurring concern. Reviewers report that special dietary needs — specifically vegetarian diets — were not accommodated and that inappropriate food (for example, sausages or fish) was served to those with such restrictions. Complaints about the dietitian and meal management indicate that nutritional care and menu personalization were deficient. These complaints suggest poor coordination between dietary staff and nursing/clinical staff responsible for residents' care plans.
Personal property and trust issues: At least one summary reports that a resident's belongings disappeared. Coupled with other reports of poor care and unresponsiveness, lost or missing personal items further erode trust between families and the facility and highlight shortcomings in property management and accountability.
Patterns, implications, and status: Taken together, the reviews describe multiple, intersecting failures: clinical neglect, unclean conditions, poor dietary accommodation, unresponsiveness by staff, and unresolved safety concerns that in one account required police involvement. The summaries also indicate the facility is "no longer in service," which may reflect closure, change of ownership, or license status; reviewers do not provide official documentation of that status but it aligns with the severity of the complaints. While review summaries cannot replace formal investigations or regulatory findings, the volume and severity of the allegations here point to systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.
Summary judgement and considerations for others: Based solely on these review summaries, the predominant impression is one of significant risk to resident well-being at this facility during the periods described. Families and advocates reading these accounts would reasonably be concerned about medical responsiveness, hygiene standards, dietary management, property security, and staff accountability. If considering placement or evaluating past performance, stakeholders should seek corroborating documentation such as state inspection reports, complaint histories, and current licensing status, and should directly verify present-day conditions, staffing levels, and care practices before making decisions.
