Overall sentiment across the review summaries for Altercare Somerset is highly mixed and polarized. Many reviewers express strong, positive experiences highlighting compassionate caregivers, clean facilities, and staff members who go above and beyond. At the same time, multiple reviews allege serious care failures, safety lapses, and administrative or communication problems. The pattern is one of contrasts: individual staff and shifts are frequently praised, yet systemic problems and intermittent neglect are reported strongly enough to be recurring themes.
Care quality and safety are among the most crucial and most divided topics. On the positive side, several reviews single out nurses and aides as caring, attentive, and timely with medications; families report residents feeling valued, comfortable, and well looked-after. Specific names (Megan, Emily, Tina, Cheryl, Mary, Kelly, Kate, Shawna) are repeatedly mentioned as exemplary, and some reviewers explicitly say they highly recommend the facility. Conversely, other reviews recount alarming neglect — patients left on a potty chair for hours, development of bed sores allegedly due to not being turned, delayed pain medication, inconsistent medicine administration, and allegations of residents not being given water. There are multiple explicit safety concerns: missing bed rails and alarms, a wheelchair without wheels, and no walker available. These reports suggest that while individual caregivers may be excellent, there are serious lapses in consistent, facility-wide safety and basic nursing care for some residents.
Staffing, management, and culture show similarly mixed feedback. Many reviewers praise aides and nursing staff as compassionate and well trained; however, there are also frequent complaints about rude nursing staff, unprofessional behavior from some aides, and a rude front desk. A notable criticism is of management and corporate responsiveness — for example, delayed landline installation, phone lines not available in resident rooms, and ongoing difficulties with the phone/Wi‑Fi provider (Spectrum). Short staffing is flagged (which ties to delayed meals and potential neglect) and some reviewers explicitly call management "very unprofessional." One review even characterizes the facility as not homelike, with residents sitting in hallways with little interaction, indicating that staffing allocation and engagement of residents may be inconsistent.
Administrative, discharge, and policy issues also appear as recurring themes. There are reports of unsafe discharge procedures, incomplete Medicaid paperwork, and families being threatened with private-pay costs or pressured toward transfers — administrative practices that can cause significant stress for families. Communication breakdowns extend to technological infrastructure: delayed or absent landline service in rooms, Wi‑Fi and password restrictions, and poor corporate follow-through. Accessibility concerns for legally blind residents were explicitly mentioned, suggesting that the facility may not consistently meet the needs of residents with sensory impairments. Policy enforcement complaints (e.g., restricted outside access, being yelled at for giving cigarettes or coffee) further indicate a sometimes rigid or punitive local culture around rules.
Facilities and amenities present a mixed picture. Multiple reviewers describe the facility as clean and nice, with many positive comments about the environment and overall upkeep. On the other hand, there are operational shortcomings: meal delivery delays and inconsistent dining experiences are reported, some residents appear to lack stimulation or organized activities (sitting in halls with little interaction), and hardware issues (mobility equipment not functioning) raise safety and quality-of-life concerns. The combination of generally clean physical spaces with variable operational reliability suggests that resources may be present but unevenly deployed or maintained.
In summary, Altercare Somerset elicits both high praise and serious criticism. Strengths include many dedicated, compassionate caregivers and aides who provide individualized, timely care; a generally clean facility; and numerous families who strongly recommend the community. Major concerns include inconsistent care across shifts, reports of neglect and safety lapses, administrative and communication breakdowns (phone/Wi‑Fi/service provider issues and poor corporate responsiveness), short-staffing effects (late meals, limited interaction), accessibility deficits, and troubling discharge/Medicaid paperwork practices. The reviews indicate that resident experience may vary greatly depending on staffing, shift, and particular caregivers. Prospective residents and families should vet the facility carefully: ask specific questions about staffing ratios, medication timing protocols, fall-prevention and turning schedules, mobility equipment maintenance, discharge and Medicaid processes, and how leadership addresses complaints and provider/phone service issues. A site visit (including observing meal service, staff-resident interactions, and availability of mobility and safety equipment) and conversations with families currently using the facility would help clarify whether the positive caregiver experiences described match the broader operational reliability you need.
