Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed and highly polarized: many families and reviewers praise specific teams and programs (notably memory care, activities staff, tour/admissions staff, and certain frontline crews), while an approximately equal number report serious and systemic problems tied to management, clinical oversight, and inconsistent daily care. Positive comments often focus on the community and social aspects—residents opening up socially, enjoying activities and art programs, and benefiting from attentive memory-care personnel—whereas negatives tend to be concentrated in clinical management, communication, and safety matters.
Care quality and clinical safety are recurring focal points of concern. Multiple reviewers reported medication management issues (medications being restarted contrary to family expectations, medications withheld, or general failure to follow prescribed regimens), instances of poor wound care and bedsores, and at least one allegation of an infected wound not being properly managed. These clinical problems sometimes led to EMS calls and hospital transfers that families felt were avoidable. Conversely, other reviewers describe good health monitoring and short-term nursing responsiveness; however, that positive care appears inconsistent and dependent on the specific staff on duty and the resident’s needs.
Staff behavior and training present a clear split in experiences. Several reviewers singled out particular staff groups as compassionate, personable, and very helpful—especially the activities director, art teacher, and some nurses/techs—while others recount troubling behavior, including rude or aggressive tones, cussing at residents, antagonizing or criticizing residents, and a lack of gentle re-direction for residents with dementia. There are explicit complaints about inadequate dementia training. High staff turnover and reports of changed management correlate with many of the negative experiences, suggesting instability in staffing and leadership contributes to inconsistent care.
Management, administration, and communication are major areas of dissatisfaction. Many reviewers found management unresponsive or unprofessional; there are several allegations of dishonesty and even financial misconduct, disputes over refunds and billing, and complaints that administrators prioritize money over resident needs. Communication failures are well documented: families reported not being informed about ambulance transfers or hospital sends, phone lines and messages going unanswered, psych or medication changes not being explained, and general difficulty reaching head nurses or directors without visiting in person. Admissions and intake processes also drew criticism in several cases (intake provider/doctor errors, poor handoffs), though other reviewers complimented admissions staff and the tour experience.
Facility, safety, and housekeeping show mixed feedback. Many reviewers praised the physical environment: remodeled wings, new rooms, varied floor plans, pristine dining facilities, and nice outdoor walking areas. Others reported cleanliness problems such as odors and insufficient mopping, trip hazards like cables/cords left under sinks, care-plans left in rooms (privacy/HIPAA issue), missing or delayed furniture at move-in, and lost personal items or laundry. Safety concerns also included incidents of residents being left alone outside and insufficient supervision for high-needs residents.
Dining and activities are also described in both positive and negative terms. Several reviewers praised nutritious meals, low-salt options, social dining tables, and how food and group meals helped residents’ moods and social engagement. Conversely, others criticized meal quality—small portions, unappetizing offerings, and limited alternatives for picky eaters. Activities programming receives frequent praise for variety and engagement (outings, art classes, themed events), but COVID-related reductions, an inactive local church program, or staffing shortages sometimes limited offerings.
Taken together, a salient pattern is conditional suitability: TerraBella Knightdale may be an excellent match for residents who benefit from strong memory-care programming, social activities, and are not highly medically complex or dependent on consistently flawless nursing oversight. For families requiring rigorous clinical consistency—tight medication management, proactive wound care, robust dementia-specific training, transparent communication, and reliable administrative follow-through—the reviews suggest caution. The mixed reports around management responsiveness, reported clinical lapses, privacy concerns, and periodic unprofessional behavior mean prospective residents and families should perform focused, in-person due diligence.
Recommended actions for families considering this community: ask for recent staffing turnover and staff training records (especially for dementia care), request specific policies on medication management and wound care, verify incident and hospital-transfer communication protocols, tour the actual wing/room to confirm condition and furniture readiness, request references from current families in similar care tiers, and clarify billing/refund policies in writing. These steps will better predict whether the strengths (memory care, activities, social dining, remodeled facilities) will be the dominant experience for your loved one or whether the documented management and clinical shortcomings might create problems.
