Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: a significant portion of reviewers praise Cross Timbers for its mission, specialized focus, and portions of its staff and environment, while a substantial number express very strong negative feelings about care quality, safety, staffing, and management. Many reviewers explicitly call the facility a valuable and rare resource for seniors with mental illness in the state, describing the mission and some staff as compassionate and competent. Conversely, multiple accounts describe declines in care, neglect, safety incidents, and unprofessional behavior that lead some families to strongly advise against placement.
Care quality and clinical services appear uneven. Positive comments emphasize that Cross Timbers is one of the few long-term care options that specializes in senior mental health and that some programs and staff are well suited to that mission. However, repeatedly cited clinical problems include medication issues (both allegations of overmedication and of medications not being administered), frequent resident falls leading to ER visits, and an overall impression from several reviewers that mentally ill residents are not being adequately supported. The facility provides access to a nurse practitioner monthly, but multiple reviewers flagged a preference for psychiatrists and described the NP schedule as insufficient for the population served. Reviewers also noted an absence of group therapy and animal therapy and generally limited mental-health programming.
Staffing, professionalism, and training are central themes. Many reviews praise individual nurses, technicians, or passionate staff members who do excellent work, but these positives coexist with frequent reports of high turnover, gaps in staff knowledge of policies and procedures, and inconsistent competency. Several reviewers reported poor responsiveness (calls mismanaged or routed so residents had to answer), unprofessional behavior including staff smelling of smoke or marijuana, and concerns that staff are overworked or insufficient in number to properly engage residents with psychiatric needs. Some families expressed that initial impressions were good but that quality declined over time, suggesting instability in staffing or oversight.
Facilities and activities receive both praise and criticism. The building itself is described as attractive and undergoing remodeling; multiple reviewers called it beautiful. At the same time, the presence of cameras in resident rooms was raised as a significant privacy concern by some families. Activity offerings specific to mental-health needs appear limited — reviewers explicitly mentioned the lack of group therapy and animal therapy — and several notes called for more staff to run appropriate therapeutic activities for a mixed population of older and younger residents with diverse needs.
Management and safety oversight generate mixed and often heated commentary. A few reviewers view the arrival of a new administrator and Director of Nursing as a hopeful sign for improvement, while others characterized administration as poor or even “horrible.” Reviewers referenced long-term care survey results and recommended caution or outright avoidance of placement, with some giving extremely negative overall ratings. Safety issues (falls, ER trips, medication mishandling) and policy gaps contributed to strong family concern and distrust in the facility’s ability to consistently safeguard vulnerable residents.
Patterns and actionable impressions: the reviews paint a picture of a facility with an important, specialized mission that is delivering meaningful help to some residents but failing others, often due to staffing, training, and resource limitations. Strengths to emphasize are the specialization in geriatric mental health, visible improvements to the physical plant, and committed individual staff members. The most urgent weaknesses to address are staffing stability and levels, access to psychiatric care, structured mental-health programming (group and animal therapy), medication management practices, privacy policies regarding cameras, and clear, consistent leadership. For families considering Cross Timbers, the reviews suggest a careful, ongoing vetting process: ask about current staffing ratios and turnover, psychiatric coverage, medication administration protocols, incident and fall rates, presence and purpose of cameras, and what changes the new administration has implemented. The facility appears to have real potential given its unique role and some dedicated staff, but consistent accountability and clinical resource improvements are repeatedly cited as necessary before many reviewers would recommend placement.
