Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed to negative. Multiple reviewers note positive aspects of the physical environment and resident community but express strong concerns about clinical care quality and staff stability. Several reviewers say their initial experiences were good, but the quality of care declined over time. The most frequently raised and serious issues are medication errors and frequent changes in nursing leadership, which reviewers directly link to lapses in basic care.
Care quality is the central concern in these summaries. Reported problems include medication errors (mentioned multiple times), basic care lapses such as residents being forgotten during meals, and general neglect. One reviewer explicitly describes a decline from earlier "great experiences" to later instances of residents being forgotten to be fed. These are not described as isolated incidents but as recurring patterns that led some families to intervene personally or ultimately move their loved ones to other facilities. The repetition of medication errors combined with missed basic needs suggests systemic problems with care processes and oversight rather than one-off mistakes.
Staffing and care coordination emerge as a clear pattern. Reviewers report high RN turnover, including a specific mention of four different head RNs over a period, and poor staff consistency. This instability is associated with coordination problems: handoffs, medication administration, and daily care routines appear to suffer when leadership and staffing are in flux. While front-line staff are often described as friendly, that friendliness does not consistently translate into reliable or competent clinical care. Several summaries note that families had to step in to ensure adequate care, indicating a breakdown in the facility/family partnership model that is expected in assisted living and skilled nursing settings.
The facility environment and resident community receive positive remarks. Multiple reviewers describe the facility as clean and mention friendly staff members and "wonderful residents," suggesting that the physical space and social atmosphere have strengths. Basic assisted living services are acknowledged as available, and one review mentions supportive transition assistance, indicating the facility can provide helpful administrative or move-in support. However, these positives are overshadowed for some families by the reported clinical and management issues.
Management and communication present a mixed picture. Some reviewers note supportive management and assistance with transitions, while others criticize the facility for a one-sided partnership with families and poor phone/customer service. The tension between these perspectives may reflect variability across different staff shifts, departments, or time periods; however, the critical reviews emphasize that when communication fails, families feel shut out and must escalate concerns, sometimes culminating in relocating their family member.
In summary, the reviews portray Good Samaritan Society - Fargo as a facility with a clean environment and a warm resident community, staffed in part by friendly caregivers and with some capacity to support transitions. The major and recurring negatives are clinical in nature: medication errors, neglect of basic needs (including missed meals), high nursing leadership turnover, and inconsistent caregiving. These issues have led to family intervention and relocation in at least some cases. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive aspects of the environment and community against the documented risks around clinical reliability and staff stability, ask detailed questions about current staffing and medication-safety protocols, and monitor care coordination and communication closely if choosing this facility.
