Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: several families report outstanding, compassionate, home-like care while others describe serious neglect and operational failures. Many reviewers praise the facility for its small size and familial atmosphere, noting that a small resident population (six-person) allows staff to be responsive, patient, and attentive. Positive accounts emphasize clean rooms, frequent staff check-ins, preventive care (for example, being turned to prevent pressure sores), flexible meal options, on-site haircuts, upcoming podiatry services, and good communication with families. Several reviewers describe a life-changing improvement in wellbeing after placement, with staff treated like family and grateful families recommending the facility. The facility's willingness to accept residents with complex conditions (such as Lewy Body disease) when other places would not is cited as an important strength.
Contrasting sharply with those positive reports are multiple serious complaints about basic hygiene, staffing, and safety. Specific issues include toileting neglect that reviewers link to recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs) and skin sores, an ongoing urine odor in the building, and reports of grooming neglect. Some families describe staff as poorly trained and overworked, which they connect to medication errors and concerns about overmedication. These accounts indicate risks to resident health and dignity and suggest inconsistent standards of care across residents or shifts.
Operational and management concerns appear repeatedly. Reviewers report that meals and essential supplies run out, and one allegation states staff have eaten residents' meals. Management is criticized as slow to restock supplies and not proactive about arranging hospital or rehabilitation referrals when needed. There are also reports of pest problems and the odor of poison, which raise serious facility maintenance and safety questions. Additionally, some reviewers say the facility does not consistently follow posted menu guidelines. Coupled with comments about high cost and poor value, these operational shortcomings form a pattern that could significantly undermine trust for prospective residents and families.
Taken together, the reviews point to a facility that can deliver excellent, personalized care in certain circumstances (especially noted by families who experienced attentive, loving staff and notable health improvements) but also exhibits dangerous lapses in basic caregiving, medication management, and facility maintenance. The variability in experiences suggests inconsistency in staffing, training, inventory management, or oversight. For families considering Avendelle Assisted Living, the data indicate two possible outcomes: highly positive, family-like care and improvement in quality of life, or exposure to significant neglect and safety issues. Prospective residents and families should seek detailed, current information from management about staffing ratios, training and supervision procedures, medication administration protocols, pest control and housekeeping practices, inventory and meal-planning safeguards, and recent corrective actions. Visiting multiple times at different hours, asking for references from current families, and requesting documentation of staff training, medication error logs, and pest-control records may help clarify which set of experiences is more representative at this facility.
