Overall sentiment across the reviews for Phoenix of Maple Heights (formerly Sunrise Pointe) is sharply mixed and polarized. Many reviewers praise individual staff members, the activities program, and certain clinical departments, while a substantial number of other reviewers report serious and recurring problems including theft, neglect, facility disrepair, and unsafe conditions. This creates a pattern in which outcomes and impressions appear heavily dependent on timing, specific staff on duty, and possibly the unit or floor where a resident stayed.
Care quality and staffing: One of the most prominent themes is inconsistency in care. Multiple reviewers describe compassionate, dedicated frontline staff and aides who went above and beyond, with explicit praise for physical therapy (Becca), patient aide Glen, and other care team members. At the same time, many families report declining health for residents during their stay, long delays in responding to needs, and situations where residents were perceived to be abandoned or poorly attended. Understaffing and high turnover are frequently mentioned as factors that degrade care quality; several reviews indicate reliance on agency staff, which some link to uneven performance and morale issues among regular staff.
Safety, theft, and mistreatment allegations: Several reviewers raise serious safety concerns, including missing belongings, alleged tip-stealing by staff, and direct accusations of nurse theft. There are also reports of bruises, suspicious rashes, and beliefs that residents experienced mistreatment or neglect. These claims are among the strongest negative points and prompt some reviewers to warn others not to use the facility and to call for regulatory action. Such allegations co-exist with praises for individual caregivers, which suggests that safety and trust are inconsistent and that families should be vigilant about valuables and monitoring care quality.
Facilities and cleanliness: Reviews paint a mixed picture of the physical plant. A number of people report building disrepair, including holes in ceilings, damaged furniture, outdated areas, lack of air conditioning in some spaces, and descriptions of the building as "falling apart." Pest issues are explicitly mentioned — bed bugs on the second floor, roaches, and mice — alongside occasional complaints of strong urine or feces odors. Conversely, some reviewers note improvements: freshly painted or blue walls, cleaner rooms, and well-kept floors. These contradictory observations suggest variability by unit or intermittent renovations rather than a comprehensive upgrade across the facility.
Management, administration, and communication: Administrative leadership receives both praise and criticism. Several reviews single out positive administrators and staff who are responsive and caring, while others accuse management of being rude, money-focused, or dishonest. Phone responsiveness and communication emerge as a recurring pain point, with reports of long waits to enter the facility, unanswered calls, and poor follow-up with hospital contacts. Some reviewers credit the owner and certain administrators with positive engagement, but complaints about mismanagement and unmet promises are frequent.
Activities and dining: Activities and social life are strong, commonly cited positives. Many reviewers highlight a lively activities program with music, dancing, singing, instruments, DJ Dave, ice cream Sundays, and active resident council involvement. These programs appear to foster friendships and a social atmosphere for many residents. Dining receives mixed but generally favorable comments: several reviewers describe tasty or nutritious meals, though others say meals are not consistently great. The presence of social events, religious outings (occasional church trips), and opportunities for family visits are repeatedly noted as valuable.
Infection control and COVID-era practices: A subset of reviews refer to COVID visiting restrictions and the availability of video calls, which some families appreciated. However, other reviewers criticize COVID handling, reporting that positive cases were not always properly isolated and that infection control practices were inconsistent.
Notable patterns and final impressions: The dominant pattern is variability. Where reviewers experienced attentive, compassionate staff and active programming, they described the facility as a "hidden gem" and recommended it. Where reviewers encountered staffing shortages, mismanagement, theft, or serious clinical decline, they left very negative impressions and even urged regulatory intervention. Specific, repeated red flags include reports of missing personal items, pests, building disrepair, and unreliable administration. Specific compliments often name individual staff who made a positive difference, indicating that strong employees exist but that systemic problems can undermine overall performance.
Recommendation for prospective families: Given the mixed and polarized feedback, prospective families should perform targeted due diligence before admitting a loved one. Suggested steps include visiting multiple units at different times of day, asking directly about staffing levels and turnover, inquiring about infection control and pest remediation, checking security and valuables policies, speaking with families of current residents, and documenting any concerns immediately. If safety issues, theft, or neglect are suspected, families should report them to regulators promptly. The facility appears capable of providing high-quality social programming and compassionate care in many instances, but the recurring serious complaints mean vigilance and direct verification are advisable.
