Overall sentiment across reviews is mixed-to-concerning, with a clear split between praise for the physical environment and the rehabilitation team versus repeated complaints about staffing, basic nursing care, safety, and communication. Many reviewers rave about the facility’s aesthetics and amenities: high-end architecture, an indoor promenade with a chapel, coffee shop, salon, attractive rooms, spacious hallways, and outdoor touches like an aviary. The facility is consistently described as clean and well kept. Rehabilitation and physical therapy are recurrent bright spots — multiple reviews single out excellent therapists (including named staff such as Brian and Kyle) and describe the therapy team as skilled, attentive, and highly recommended. Activities programming has supporters as well; reviewers mention an engaged activities director, weekly programs, events like senior choir concerts, and social areas that contribute to a warm, family-like atmosphere for some residents.
However, a substantial portion of the reviews raise serious operational and clinical concerns. Understaffing is the dominant negative theme: reviewers across multiple reports describe long delays in call-light responses (sometimes over an hour), inadequate night staffing, and the need for family members to supervise or provide routine care (hydration, turning, bedpans). This chronic understaffing is linked to inconsistent care quality — while a number of nurses and aides are praised as excellent or hardworking, many others are described as rude, disorganized, inattentive, or improperly trained. Specific clinical failures are troubling: repeated reports of delayed pain medication (2–3 hours), poor wound and ostomy care, dehydration risk, hypoglycemia events, and alleged elder abuse or neglect (e.g., being left on a toilet). There are also reports of emergency situations culminating in ER visits, emergency surgery, and at least one death, with families reporting poor communication and lack of condolences.
Safety and security concerns appear repeatedly. Reviewers note no dedicated memory care unit, inadequate door security, and risks of wandering and falls. These safety gaps, combined with staffing shortages and delayed responses, create a notable risk profile for residents with cognitive impairment or high care needs. Discharge and administrative processes are another pain point: families report chaotic discharges, canceled doctor appointments, insufficient medications provided for weekends, billing irregularities (including being charged rehab rates for long-term stays), laundry mixups, missing personal belongings, and an often-unmanned front desk. Communication failures are pervasive — from unresponsive reception and secrecy about residents’ conditions to delayed family conferences and inconsistent updates from nursing leadership. Several reviewers mention management acknowledgement of problems and a new CEO or leadership attempting to drive improvements, but results are uneven and change is still in progress in reviewers’ experiences.
Dining and daily-living services receive frequent criticism: meals are often described as poor quality or served cold, and kitchen staff are singled out as an area needing training. Yet some residents and families reported satisfactory dining experiences and prompt dinners during certain stays. The dichotomy seen throughout the reviews is noteworthy: many positive, specific experiences (especially around therapy, some individual caregivers, and amenities) sit alongside systemic negatives that affect safety and trust. Several reviewers who had short-term rehab stays or who dealt primarily with the therapy department left strongly positive impressions, while those dependent on longer-term nursing care or with complex medical needs more often reported neglect and serious lapses.
In summary, Fox Run Manor presents as a high-quality environment physically and in specific service lines (notably rehabilitation and some activities), but with persistent operational and clinical problems that materially affect resident safety and family trust. Key red flags from the reviews are chronic understaffing, long response times to calls, inconsistent nursing care (including delayed pain management), security/safety gaps for memory-impaired residents, communication and discharge failures, and billing/administrative issues. There are signs of improvement under new leadership and strong pockets of excellent care, so experiences appear to vary widely by unit, shift, and individual caregivers. Prospective residents and families should weigh the attractive physical campus and strong therapy program against reported risks in nursing coverage and safety, and should ask targeted questions about staffing ratios, medication administration protocols, security measures for wandering, discharge procedures, and how management addresses missing belongings and billing disputes before deciding on placement.
