Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: many families and residents praise individual staff members, cleanliness, the intimate/home‑like environment, activities and select dining experiences, while a substantial number of other reviewers report serious quality‑of‑care, staffing, management and safety concerns. Positive reports consistently highlight warm, compassionate caregivers and nurses who engage with residents, a strong activities program, pleasant common spaces, river views and pet therapy, and an overall atmosphere that makes some residents feel at home. Those positive themes are frequent enough that many reviewers explicitly recommend the community and note that their loved ones thrive there when staffing is stable.
Care quality and staffing are the most prominent themes in the negative reviews. Multiple reviewers describe significant staffing shortages, high turnover, and heavy reliance on agency or temporary staff. These staffing problems are tied to inconsistent day‑to‑day care: favorable experiences are usually linked to stable, permanent staff, while poor experiences correlate with periods when longtime employees left or were replaced. Specific and serious medical concerns appear in several summaries: missed or withheld medication (including an allegation of medication withheld for six days), staff diagnoses made without licensed evaluation, and reports of residents left soiled for long periods (examples include sitting in urine/poop for hours). Night‑time care and responsiveness to call buttons are repeatedly criticized as worse than daytime care.
Memory care emerges as a particularly problematic area in several reviews. Some families describe the memory care unit as small, dark, poorly ventilated and under‑stimulating, with persistent urine odors and inadequate interaction or activities. There are reports that staff either overstate activity participation or fail to engage residents meaningfully in memory care. Conversely, other reviewers note improvements under new management or individual staff who have helped transform the floor. This contrast reinforces the pattern that resident experience closely tracks staff continuity and management engagement.
Facility and maintenance issues are mixed: many reviewers praise the building, grounds and cleanliness, calling the property beautiful, spotless, well‑landscaped and hotel‑like, with comfortable dining areas and river views. At the same time, there are multiple specific maintenance complaints and capital needs—peeling baseboards, exterior doors that allegedly do not lock, an old shuttle bus, and reports of no maintenance person on staff. Some promised accommodations (e.g., roll‑in showers) or equipment (additional lifts) were reported as not delivered, forcing families to purchase equipment themselves.
Dining and activities feedback is varied. Several reviewers praise excellent home‑cooked meals, fresh bread and a well‑set dining room; others criticize repetitive or low‑quality offerings (hot dogs, frozen onion rings), cold food and limited menu choices. Activities programming is generally viewed positively, with frequent mention of trips, bingo, sing‑alongs and engaged activity staff—but a subset of reviewers say activities are limited, poorly timed (scheduled during residents’ nap times), or overstated by staff. The Activities Director and some activity team members receive repeated commendations for going above and beyond.
Management, billing and corporate responsiveness are recurring concerns. Positive reviews note engaged directors who answer questions and follow up, with specific praise for named staff. However, a significant number of summaries allege managerial unresponsiveness, delayed or no responses from corporate, erroneous billing, unexpected charges (including an allegation of a $700 carpet charge after a resident’s passing without invoice), retracting discounts, and general lack of transparency on pricing and Medicaid policies. Several reviewers connect declines in service quality to ownership or corporate transitions, describing a drop in staff morale and resident care after takeovers.
Safety and regulatory concerns are raised by a minority but are high‑impact: reports of non‑clinical staff making diagnoses, lack of electronic communication between nurses and staff, apparent misclassification of nurse manager credentials (allegation she was not an RN), and allegations of abuse, theft, or coercing families to write positive reviews. While these serious allegations are not universal, they merit close scrutiny because they relate to resident safety and regulatory compliance.
In summary, Bickford of Upper Arlington elicits strong support from many families who praise individual caregivers, cleanliness, a warm atmosphere, active programming and several engaged managers. At the same time, there is a substantial and distinct body of reviews documenting troubling operational problems: chronic understaffing, inconsistent care particularly at night and in memory care, maintenance deficits, variable dining quality, and significant billing and management responsiveness issues. The most consistent pattern is that resident experience highly depends on staff continuity and which personnel are on duty: when permanent, experienced staff and engaged directors are present, residents and families report very positive experiences; when staffing is lean, agency heavy, or during leadership transitions, families report notable lapses in care and safety. Prospective residents and families should weigh the many favorable testimonials about staff and atmosphere against the recurring complaints about staffing stability, memory care environment, maintenance and billing transparency, and should perform targeted due diligence—ask about current staffing levels, staff turnover rates, night‑shift coverage, memory care programming and cleanliness protocols, lift and shower accessibility, specific billing practices, and how management responds to complaints—before making a decision.
