Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but centers on two consistent themes: the staff and community are frequently praised for their compassion and attentiveness, while the physical condition, staffing consistency, and operational details of the facility raise concerns. Many reviewers repeatedly highlight individual caregivers, aides, and some managers as warm, dedicated, and willing to accommodate resident needs (for example, moving a resident to a single room so they could keep furniture and friends). Multiple people used words like "loving," "attentive," and "bend over backward," and several accounts describe a strong sense of community, friendly residents, and activities such as bingo and campus outings. For budget-conscious families, the facility is often cited as a good value — explicitly described as "low cost" and "great price for all-inclusive" — with included services such as weekly laundry and optional physician access for signed-up residents.
However, those positive comments sit alongside specific operational and facility-related concerns. Several reviewers describe the building and public spaces as drab, dark, worn, and in need of painting or renovation. There are specific cleanliness complaints and at least one report of a bad hallway smell. Low occupancy is called out (one summary cites 16 rooms with only 8 occupied), which reviewers felt limited opportunities for diverse socialization and gave a sparse feel. Rooms are described by some as unfurnished and in need of freshening.
Care consistency and staffing reliability appear to be the most significant pattern of concern. While some reviews praise highly attentive staff, others describe inconsistent care: weekend staffing gaps, aides who are rude or lack necessary knowledge, and CMAs who couldn't answer basic questions. Several reviewers reported meal delivery problems and cited short or inconsistent staff coverage that led to missed services. There are also mentions of an "untrustworthy director" and mixed impressions of management; one theme is that management changed last year and is "trying to improve," suggesting transition-related growing pains. Additionally, some families were concerned about clinical policies — for example, references to possible fall-disqualification rules — and the need to verify whether the facility can meet higher care coordination or medical needs.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Some reviewers praised the food ("good food with multiple options"; "food smelled amazing"), while others were dissatisfied, saying meal options were not always offered or that meal quality was poor. There are concrete notes that some meals cost an extra $5 and that meal delivery has been problematic. Dining logistics were also criticized: reports of long lines in the dining room and the requirement that residents be mobile enough to reach dining spaces. Activity offerings exist (bingo, bus outings, memory care programs), and several reviewers described staff who encourage participation, but memory care activities were specifically described as limited by some reviewers.
Management and administrative details show variability. Some accounts praise attentive management, good hires, and staff who "handled everything" for residents; others point to poor communication, staff who couldn't answer questions, and leadership that felt untrustworthy. The presence of a physician for residents who sign up is a clear procedural detail — helpful for those who enroll — but reviewers noted gaps in staff clinical knowledge (CMAs not knowing procedures or answers). Several reviewers indicated the facility wasn't appropriate for residents who need more intensive care coordination, and one family explicitly did not choose the community for that reason.
In sum, Tealridge Assisted Living and Memory Care appears to offer strong interpersonal care and a community atmosphere at a competitive price, making it a potentially good fit for residents with low-to-moderate needs who prioritize warmth, affordability, and community. At the same time, the facility shows signs of physical wear, under-occupancy, and inconsistent operational performance (especially in staffing and clinical knowledge), which create uncertainty about reliability for residents with higher medical or supervision needs. Prospective families should weigh the warm, people-focused strengths against the facility condition, staffing consistency, meal logistics, and care-capability concerns; it would be prudent to confirm current occupancy, recent renovation plans, staffing patterns (particularly weekends), fall policies, meal costs, and the facility's ability to meet any specific clinical needs before deciding.
