Overall sentiment about St. Clare Commons is highly mixed and strongly polarized. Across the reviews there is a consistent pattern: the physical facility, amenities, and therapy services are frequently praised, while day-to-day nursing care, staffing reliability, management responsiveness, and safety/operations receive repeated criticism. Many families and residents comment that the building itself—rooms, grounds, chapel, therapy and activity spaces, dining room and common areas—is beautiful, modern, and exceptionally clean. The campus ambiance, faith-based environment, and resort-like amenities (library, therapy room, outdoor spaces, even an on-site coffee option) are repeatedly described as strengths that create a warm, welcoming impression on tours and admissions.
Therapy and rehab services are one of the clearest strengths in the reviews. Physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy are consistently singled out as excellent: reviewers report measurable functional gains (such as walking unaided, improved speech, and memory improvements), call out specific staff in therapy as outstanding, and note good coordination with payors/insurance for rehab services. For families seeking robust rehabilitation, St. Clare commonly receives high marks, and multiple reviewers describe successful transitions from short-term rehab to longer-term placements facilitated by therapy teams.
Dining and food are described in both glowing and negative terms, indicating variability. Many reviewers praise the meals as delicious and varied with accommodating kitchen staff, while others report chronic problems such as wrong orders, missed meals, long food-service delays, and concerns about kitchen practices (e.g., hairnet use). Dietary staff are also noted as accommodating to picky eaters by some families, but food quality and consistency appear to fluctuate across units and shifts.
Staffing and direct care are the major source of complaints and the main driver of negative sentiment. Numerous reviews report understaffing, frequent turnover (especially in nursing and memory care), and unpredictable last-minute call-offs. These staffing gaps are tied to delayed responses to call lights, late or missed medications, poor pain control, missed personal care (bathing, grooming), and failures to follow through on promised services. Several reviews describe serious safety issues such as falls (including one down stairs) and delayed response to emergencies. Multiple accounts allege misdocumentation, unsafe medication guidance, and delays in chest X-rays or other timely care. Although many individual aides and nurses are praised as caring and respectful, the inconsistency across staff members—often due to turnover—leaves families concerned about continuity of care and staff familiarity with residents’ needs.
Management, communication, and accountability are recurring themes in the negative reviews. Some reviewers praise specific leaders (named staff such as Nicole and Director James Curran are called out for responsiveness and problem resolution), but others report inaction, unreturned calls from nursing leadership and administration, missing paperwork, hostile or dismissive responses to complaints, and resistance to addressing systemic problems. This mixed leadership impression contributes to a perception among some families that operational issues are tolerated rather than proactively corrected. Complaints have escalated for some families to formal filings with state health departments, and there are allegations that financial considerations sometimes drive decisions (e.g., discharges tied to insurance) rather than resident well-being.
Safety, regulatory, and administrative issues surface in multiple reviews: Medicaid and insurance paperwork errors, billing concerns (including higher charges and policies like years of self-pay before Medicaid), maintenance delays (broken thermostat, toilet seat issues), and infection-control restrictions that limit visitation at times. Memory care is described as offering a secure lock-down unit with modern rooms, but reviewers also note high turnover in memory-care staffing and limited resident stimulation in that unit—some families felt residents were left watching television with little engagement.
In sum, St. Clare Commons presents a classic case of strong physical plant and specialty services (notably rehab/therapy and a faith-based community presence) paired with inconsistent everyday nursing care and operational reliability. Prospective residents and families will likely appreciate the facility’s cleanliness, private rooms, amenities, and therapy outcomes. However, they should be cautious and do targeted due diligence: ask detailed questions about current staffing ratios and turnover rates on the unit of interest, medication administration procedures and error-reporting processes, recent complaint history and how leadership has addressed concerns, specifics about meal and maintenance workflows, and how the facility manages infection precautions and family access. Visiting at different times/shifts, speaking to current residents’ families, and confirming named staff continuity (or the availability of consistent caregivers) are practical steps to verify whether St. Clare’s strengths are consistently delivered in the specific unit or shift under consideration.
