Overall impression: Reviews present a sharply mixed picture of Berkeley Square. Many reviewers praise the facility’s physical attributes, therapy and rehabilitation services, cleanliness, infection control, and an engaged portion of the staff. At the same time, multiple reviews describe serious lapses in care, staffing shortages, inconsistent service quality, and management problems. The result is a polarized view in which the community can be excellent for some residents (especially for rehab) while posing significant risks or disappointments to others.
Care quality and safety: One of the clearest themes is variability in clinical care. Several reviews highlight outstanding, compassionate, and competent nursing staff and an “amazing” therapy team that produced successful rehab outcomes. These accounts often come with statements that the facility is a first choice for rehab. Contrasting sharply with those positive reports are multiple, alarming accounts of neglect and harm: a resident reportedly left sitting in feces for two hours, at least one resident dropped by staff and sent to the emergency room, and a reviewer reported that a patient died and experienced a negative impact on will to live. These severe incidents underscore significant inconsistency in care and raise safety concerns. Medication delivery was also called out as inconsistent in several reviews, which is another important clinical quality issue.
Staffing and professionalism: Staffing levels and staff professionalism appear highly inconsistent. Multiple reviewers assert the facility is understaffed and lacks sufficient aides, with some staff described as doing the “bare minimum.” At the same time, other reviewers praise specific nurses and staff who go above and beyond and describe administrative staff as knowledgeable and responsive. There are repeated mentions of too many contract employees and insufficient standard procedures for those staff, which likely contributes to variability in training, expectations, and continuity of care. Problems with leadership and communication were explicitly mentioned—unprofessional behavior attributed to the Director of Nursing and a social worker, and general poor communication between management and frontline staff—suggesting organizational issues that exacerbate operational inconsistencies.
Facilities and amenities: The physical plant receives consistently positive feedback. Reviewers repeatedly call the community beautiful, exquisite, and very clean. The grounds, including a lakeside setting and gazebo, are praised, as are the homes, ongoing upgrades, and expansion. The fitness center is described as impressive. These strengths appear to be reliable and form a compelling part of the community’s appeal, particularly for short-term rehab and for residents who value attractive indoor and outdoor amenities.
Dining and social interaction: Dining is a mixed-to-negative theme. Several reviewers describe institutional-style, inconsistent food quality and even reports that meals were inedible. A number of operational changes are called out: weekend dining has been suspended at times, and meals have been delivered to apartments on weekends, reducing opportunity for social interaction. A promised made-to-order breakfast offering reportedly has not been consistently delivered. The closure of the Coach House restaurant was specifically mentioned and contributes to dissatisfaction. These issues affect both satisfaction and the social life of residents, and they appear to be an ongoing source of complaint.
Activities and social programming: Activity programming receives generally positive comments for weekdays and general activity volume—many reviewers say there are lots of activities and that the community is fun. However, several reviews note that weekend activities are lacking, which ties back to reduced weekend dining and fewer opportunities for communal engagement on those days. This pattern suggests programming is front-loaded to weekdays, which may be appropriate for some residents but problematic for those who need consistent weekend engagement.
Value, management, and consistency: Price and value concerns are present; reviewers noted the community is not cheap, and several questioned whether the services delivered match the cost. Management and operational consistency are frequently criticized: too many contract workers, poor communication, inconsistent procedures, and unprofessional behavior among some leaders. These problems appear to be the root cause of many negative experiences (e.g., inconsistent meds, variable dining, and safety lapses). Where families experienced positive administrative responsiveness and coordination, they report satisfaction; where leadership and procedure are weak, residents and families report serious problems.
Net assessment and notable patterns: The reviews show a facility with strong physical assets, a highly regarded therapy/rehab program, and pockets of genuinely caring staff. However, the presence of severe adverse incidents, ongoing staffing shortages, inconsistent medication administration, and unreliable dining and weekend programming create a significant counterweight. The pattern is polarizing: some residents and families describe Berkeley Square as an excellent, beautiful community that meets their needs, while others report unacceptable care lapses and safety concerns. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s clear strengths in amenities and rehab against the documented variability in clinical care and management. If considering Berkeley Square, ask specific, documented questions about staffing ratios (including weekend coverage), incident reporting and resolution, medication administration protocols, use and oversight of contract staff, current status of dining services (Coach House and weekend offerings), and recent corrective actions taken in response to the safety incidents reported by reviewers.
