Overall sentiment across these reviews is decidedly mixed: many reviewers praise Brookdale Smithfield for its friendly, compassionate front‑line caregivers, clean and homey environment, and strong dining program under a talented chef, while a substantial number of reports highlight persistent operational problems — chiefly understaffing, inconsistent care, and management or billing failures. Positive experiences frequently emphasize warm resident interactions, comfortable private rooms, attractive common spaces (library, atrium, gardens), meaningful activities when staffed, and quick responses to maintenance issues. Several families described long‑term staff who genuinely know residents by name and provide personalized attention, and multiple reviews singled out individual employees as exemplary caregivers and communicators.
Care quality and staffing is the single most recurrent theme. While many day‑shift caregivers and CNAs are described as attentive and caring, there are numerous and specific accounts of sparse staffing during evenings and nights, slow responses to call bells, missed personal care (skipped baths, delayed toileting), and a general lack of supervision for residents who need help. These staffing shortfalls are blamed for safety problems (residents left in wheelchairs for hours, delayed assistance after falls) and for variability in resident experience from shift to shift. Several families reported only one nurse on duty, caregivers with poor attitudes, and aides who are overworked; other reviews contrast that with mentions of low turnover and long‑tenured helpful staff — underscoring the inconsistency.
Safety, incident follow‑up and clinical communication are notable areas of concern. Reviews include serious allegations: falls (including a fall the first night for one resident), an uninvestigated wheelchair incident, reports that a DNR or hospice wishes were not honored or responded to promptly, and at least one report of an assault/rape alleged after move‑out. Multiple families say administration failed to follow up after complaints, sign‑out/accountability issues were present, and that medical staff were difficult to access for hospice consults. These reports point to lapses in both clinical oversight and incident management that families should weigh carefully.
Management, admissions and billing practices draw repeated criticism alongside praise for individual caregivers. Several reviewers describe rude or unresponsive administrative staff, abrupt sales/admissions experiences, surprise additional charges for supplies or personal care, overbilling for special diets that were not actually provided, slow/refused refunds, and opaque fee increases. Conversely, other accounts praise proactive administrators and responsive management that resolved concerns. The pattern suggests that administrative competence and responsiveness are inconsistent over time or among different families.
Dining and activities are generally strengths but with variability. Many families praise the chef, nutritious meal planning and accommodations for special diets, along with positive social dining experiences. At the same time, some reviewers report repetitive menus, bland food, meals served cold or lukewarm, and billing for special diets that were not followed. Activities are described positively in many reviews (live music, crafts, exercise classes, church services, gardening) and some reviewers highlight an active calendar with staff engagement; however, several accounts note gaps — especially in memory care — including an absent or non‑existent activity director, limited reminders or transportation to events, and fewer offerings due to COVID restrictions.
Facilities and cleanliness receive mixed but mostly positive remarks. Many residents and families find the building clean, tastefully decorated, with a home‑like library, fireplace and garden spaces. Private rooms, spacious closets and same‑day linen service are frequently cited as positives. At the same time, a subset of reviews notes maintenance or housekeeping lapses (dusting, laundry not fully dry, tall/poorly maintained grounds), shared bathrooms as a negative in some unit types, and occasional shortages of basic supplies like toilet paper and paper towels.
Memory care and higher‑need resident placements show a concerning trend in the reviews: multiple families report that the memory care unit is less effectively staffed and managed than the assisted living portion, with poorer oversight, incidents of aggression, soiled odors, diaper smells, and insufficient personal care. Several reviewers explicitly state they would not recommend the community for residents needing significant hands‑on assistance.
In summary, Brookdale Smithfield presents a combination of strong person‑to‑person caregiving and welcoming physical spaces paired with operational inconsistencies that materially affect resident safety and family trust. Prospective families should weigh the frequent praise for front‑line staff, food and atmosphere against persistent reports of understaffing, uneven management response, billing/fee surprises, and troubling safety/incident follow‑up. For families considering placement, recommended steps include inquiring specifically about night and weekend staffing ratios, escalation and incident‑report policies, written clarity on all fees and diet charges, recent records of complaints/resolutions, and direct conversations with the unit leads for memory care and nursing to assess consistency before committing.
