Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans toward positive for many residents and families, with a significant minority reporting serious problems. The facility is frequently praised for its warm, welcoming atmosphere, cosmetically attractive and clean environment, and a broad set of amenities that include a salon, on-site movie theatre, library, outings, and multiple apartment layouts. Many reviewers highlight exceptionally caring and enthusiastic staff—front office, dining servers, housekeeping, and specific caregivers receive repeated praise for empathy, responsiveness, and going "above and beyond." Several reviewers specifically called out quick, helpful emergency placement and move-in support and ongoing positive communication from management in many cases.
Care quality is a major theme with highly conflicting reports. Numerous families describe excellent, conscientious care, consistent rounds, thorough cleaning, and staff who treat residents with dignity and warmth. However, quite a few reviews report serious lapses: medication administration issues (leading families to personally monitor dispensed medication), verbal elder abuse allegations, residents found unbathed or in the same clothes, long waits for assistance at night (one cited a 50-minute wait), and claims of unresponsiveness from nurse aides. These negative accounts are severe enough that some families pursued legal counsel or warned others not to send loved ones. The pattern suggests that care quality and responsiveness may be inconsistent across shifts or units, and that family oversight is frequently recommended by those who experienced problems.
Facility upkeep and cleanliness are commonly praised: many reviewers cite spotless common areas, well-kept rooms, and impressed tours. At the same time, there are isolated but serious reports of pest problems (roaches) and privacy concerns raised by some families. Amenities and layout earn strong marks—wooden floors, varied apartment options, on-site activities, and security features are repeatedly mentioned as positives. A few reviewers did note accessibility shortcomings, with rooms and common areas not ideally designed for wheelchair use and limited outdoor walking-trail access.
Dining and food service receive mixed but numerous positive comments: many residents and family members describe restaurant-style dining, engaging dining staff, and enjoyable meals. Conversely, several reviewers report food quality decline, slow meal service (plates left unattended for long periods), cold meals, limited menu choices, and a tendency for daily entrées to become routine defaults. For some residents (including picky eaters or those with swallowing issues), dining can be problematic, while others call the food among the facility's best features.
Activities and community life are often cited as strengths. Reviewers mention a rich schedule—art, bingo, dominoes, birthdays, movies, outside entertainment, outings, and trips—along with staff who actively encourage participation. The activities director is frequently characterized as energetic and engaging, and many residents report feeling at home quickly and forming new friendships. That said, memory care programming drew criticism from several reviewers who described limited memory-care activities and noted that some residents in memory care may require more hands-on assistance than provided.
Management, billing, and corporate oversight are recurring concerns. Several reviews recount billing disputes, unexpected extra charges, miscommunication about fees, and an unwillingness to offer refunds. Multiple reviewers describe a perceived corporate disconnect or management prioritizing money over resident well-being; at least one account mentioned the family needing to hire a lawyer. In contrast, other reviews describe professional, communicative management that resolves misunderstandings and responds to family concerns. This split suggests variability in administrative responsiveness and billing transparency.
Safety, staffing levels, and staffing consistency are central decision points. Positive reviewers report stable staffing and attentive caregivers, but negative reports emphasize understaffing (one example: only one RN and one LPN on staff), slow nighttime responses, alleged insufficient staff training, and inconsistent performance between shifts. These reports correlate with the most serious complaints about medication errors and alleged abuse, indicating that prospective families should ask detailed questions about staffing ratios, handover practices, and night coverage.
In summary, Legend at Tulsa Hills shows many strengths: attractive, clean facilities; a warm community; extensive activities; and numerous staff who deliver compassionate, attentive care. However, a notable subset of reviewers report serious and alarming problems—medication mishandling, verbal abuse allegations, pest sightings, billing disputes, and under-resourced shifts—making experiences highly variable. Prospective residents and families should weigh both the positive majority impressions and the minority of severe complaints. Practical steps before deciding: visit more than once including evenings/nights, observe staffing levels, ask for documented medication administration protocols and recent incident reports, request details on billing and refund policies, check memory-care programming specifics, and confirm accessibility features for mobility needs. These measures will help determine whether the facility’s strong positives match the needs and expectations for your specific situation and whether adequate safeguards exist to prevent the kinds of negative occurrences reported by other families.
