Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed, with strong positive comments about staff warmth, social atmosphere, meals, and the property’s natural setting, but serious and recurring negative reports about pests, management, staffing stability, and inconsistent programming and care.
Care quality and staffing: Several reviewers praise individual staff members as friendly, caring, and present around the clock, noting nurse assistance with medications and capable medical staff in some accounts. The community also offers dialysis/medical transportation, which is a meaningful service for residents with that need. However, there are repeated concerns about understaffing, frequent staff turnover (including reports that employees are fired regularly), and variability in staff qualifications — some reviews allege nurses with no real medical background. Multiple reports request more frequent check-ins and reminders for residents (e.g., to wear clean clothes), indicating inconsistent day-to-day personal care. These contradictions point to a facility where individual caregivers may be excellent, but systemic staffing and training issues create uneven care quality.
Staff, management, and safety: The social tone is often described as family-like and friendly, and some residents appreciate the close-knit, small-community environment. At the same time, there are serious complaints about management and administration — including an allegation of the owner yelling at residents and comments that administration is poor. Several reviewers explicitly describe the environment as "not safe," and say residents are not treated well. Frequent turnover and reports of unstable employment practices further suggest management and workplace culture problems that could affect resident experience and continuity of care.
Facilities and cleanliness: The property’s setting is frequently praised — reviewers mention beautiful grounds, forested areas, deer, and a cozy interior rather than an overly clinical feel. Conversely, the physical plant shows signs of age: multiple reviews cite older buildings and badly worn, stained carpeting in hallways. Most alarming are multiple reports of pest problems, including roaches in halls, mice (including a claim of mice in cooking areas), bats flying upstairs, and bed bugs in rooms. Those are significant red flags; they directly affect resident health and safety and contradict other reports of a "clean facility." The coexistence of both clean-facility comments and serious pest allegations suggests either variability over time, differences between wings/units, or inconsistent sanitation and pest-control practices.
Dining and daily life: Dining receives generally positive remarks: reviewers note salt-free homemade meals, delicious food, and the availability of 24/7 snacks. Rent flexibility is mentioned favorably by some. On activities and programming there is a clear split: several reviewers list an active schedule of games, outings, prayer services, coffee hour, and visits (bingo, movies, bowling, pool, casino trips, shopping, restaurants, Scrabble, board games, resident meetings). Others report no activity director, no activities during visits, and widespread resident boredom. This divergence implies inconsistency in programming or differences between units or times; it also aligns with reports of frequent staffing changes — without stable activity staff, programming can lapse.
Population, size, and cost: The community is described as small, which some view as positive for social closeness but others say makes it too small for couples. A few reviewers indicate the facility may be oriented toward male veterans and mentally challenged individuals, which suggests the resident mix may not be a fit for everyone. Cost perceptions conflict: several reviewers call rent affordable and praise flexibility, while at least one reviewer calls the community overpriced. That inconsistency could reflect changes in pricing, different unit types, or subjective expectations.
Overall impression and recommended due diligence: The facility shows many attractive qualities: warm staff (in many reports), strong communal and social features when they are active, good meals, pet-friendliness, and a pleasant grounds setting. However, the recurring and serious negatives — pest infestations, worn facilities, management concerns (including reports of verbal mistreatment), staffing instability, and inconsistent programming and clinical competency — raise important cautionary flags. These issues can materially affect resident health, safety, and quality of life.
If considering Westlake Assisted Living, prospective residents or families should verify current conditions in person and at different times of day, ask for documentation of pest-control records and recent inspections, request staff turnover/retention statistics and clarification of nursing credentials, review the current activities schedule and whether there is a dedicated activity director, confirm policies for couples and resident mix, and check contract terms and all fees to resolve the conflicting reports about cost. Given the mix of strong positives and severe negatives in the reviews, an in-person, detailed tour and direct conversations with management and current residents are essential before making a placement decision.
