Overall sentiment across these reviews is highly mixed and polarized. A substantial portion of reviewers offer strong, even glowing praise: they describe a clean, fresh facility with hotel-like private rooms, good natural lighting, spacious bathrooms and walk-in showers, and an attractive new building and grounds. Many families compliment compassionate, kind staff, helpful administrators, and specific leaders by name (Sarah R and Ricky). Positive reviews frequently mention good nurses and physicians, engaging activities such as a movie theater and bingo, and excellent customer service. Several reviewers explicitly state they would recommend the community without reservation.
Counterbalancing that are serious, recurring negative reports that flag systemic problems rather than isolated annoyances. The most frequent and alarming themes are staffing instability and care quality issues. Multiple reviews report high staff turnover, short staffing (especially on night shifts), and even no nurses at night. That understaffing is tied directly to serious care failures: missed or delayed medications, medication losses and errors, residents left unattended or found lying on floors or in bathrooms, and long stretches without showers. There are also reports of ambulances being called because of medication or care lapses. While some reviewers say nurses are excellent when present, many note that they are under-scheduled or that aides are inexperienced or unsuitable.
Medication management and safety are prominent concerns. Several reviews cite medication errors, lost medicines, and delayed dosages, including instances where paramedics were needed. Compounding this are reports of malfunctioning call buttons and slow response times, which can worsen outcomes when medical attention is needed quickly. A number of reviews also state that there is no consistent follow-up after hospitalization, suggesting gaps in continuity of care during transitions.
Dining and daily living services show a wide divergence of experiences. Some families praise excellent food and dining areas, while others describe the kitchen performance as poor — repetitive menus (e.g., soup and grilled cheese), low-quality meals, and even reports of diarrhea potentially linked to food. Laundry and housekeeping services are inconsistent in reviewers’ experiences: several people report rooms not cleaned on schedule, missing clean linens, and even a laundry room fire. Conversely, many reviewers specifically call the facility very clean and well-maintained, indicating that housekeeping quality may depend heavily on staffing levels or time periods.
Leadership and management present a split picture that likely contributes to variability in resident experience. Multiple reviews mention leadership instability, fired staff, and management that is unresponsive or unable to resolve issues; some even say the company is pulling out or that new administrative changes have been negative. At the same time, other reviewers praise administrators as helpful and understanding and describe positive changes under certain directors, suggesting that leadership turnover or recent management transitions have created inconsistent outcomes.
Security and safety also have mixed reports. Some reviewers note that gates and security measures are effective, whereas others report poor facility security with unrestricted access. Combined with reports of malfunctioning call systems and understaffing, these concerns suggest potential risks for more vulnerable residents. There are also troubling accounts of residents being left in undignified conditions (for example, laid in urine) and of long-term neglect, which should be taken seriously by prospective residents and families.
Cost and value perceptions vary. One review cites a high monthly cost (over $3,500) and frames the pricing as poor value given the inconsistent quality of care. Other reviewers call the community affordable and praise its value. This divergence again points to an inconsistent experience that may depend on the timeframe, specific unit, or staffing situation.
Patterns and likely explanations: the reviews suggest that experiences at the community can change substantially over time and by staff shift. Positive and negative reports often reference the same areas (care, food, cleanliness, leadership), implying that outcomes are closely tied to staffing levels and management stability. When leadership and staffing are stable, reviewers report excellent care and amenities; when turnover or poor management occur, reviews describe severe lapses in basic care and safety.
What prospective residents and families should probe when touring: ask about current staffing ratios and turnover rates (including night coverage and availability of licensed nurses at night), medication management protocols, emergency response procedures, call-button reliability and response times, shower and hygiene policies, laundry and housekeeping schedules, dining menus and the ability to sample meals, security measures for building access, recent leadership changes and staff tenure, and incident reporting or follow-up after hospital discharges. Given the polarized reviews, an in-person tour plus conversations with current residents and their families, and checking recent state inspection reports, will be important to assess current conditions rather than relying solely on older reviews.
In summary, Regent of Stow elicits both high praise and serious concern. The facility offers tangible strengths — clean, attractive spaces, private rooms, caring staff when present, and good programming — but also recurring, significant red flags around staffing stability, medication safety, personal care (showers/housekeeping), and management responsiveness. These mixed signals mean due diligence is essential: many families have had excellent experiences, but several reviewers report failures severe enough to warrant careful investigation before making a placement decision.
