Overall sentiment across the reviews for Farmington Square at Gresham is mixed but centers on a consistent theme: many families and residents praise the compassion and warmth of direct care staff and the cleanliness and hominess of the facility, while operational and staffing problems create serious and recurring concerns about safety, consistency, and the execution of promised care.
Care quality and staffing: A large number of reviewers explicitly commend caregivers as loving, attentive, and compassionate, and several single out office staff and coordinators by name (Betty, Diane, Cindy) for excellent communication and help during transitions. Physical therapy, hospice support, and dementia-focused care in the Diamond cottage earn positive comments for being knowledgeable and supportive. However, there are numerous, recurring reports of understaffing leading to long waits for assistance with medications, toileting, and dressing. Several reviews describe caregivers failing to show, shortages on weekends and nights, and staffing gaps that led to serious lapses—examples include residents waiting on the floor for hours after a fall, skipped baths for weeks, and supplies or incontinence needs not being met. This contradictory pattern—very caring staff when present but insufficient staffing levels—appears to be the single most significant operational issue noted across reviews.
Staff, management, and communication: Families describe a wide variance in management and administrative responsiveness. On the positive side, there are many reports of proactive communication, regular family updates, responsiveness from wellness coordinators, and thoughtful office staff who assist with practical matters (Amazon orders, move coordination). Yet other reviews report rude or unresponsive administrators, miscommunication around sensitive events (including notifying the wrong person after a death), and complaints to administrators that reportedly produced no action. Issues such as staffing prioritization to fill rooms, occupancy pressures, policy-driven Medicaid downgrades, and unclear explanations about payment and timelines (private-pay periods, move-in fees) contributed to frustration among some families.
Facilities and maintenance: Most reviewers describe the facility as clean, well-maintained, and homey, with frequent praise for common spaces, a beautiful courtyard, and spotless rooms. Some parts of the campus are newer or remodeled, while other reviewers note older sections with dated or darker ambiance. Specific maintenance concerns include noisy window-unit HVAC systems (lack of central air in bedrooms), slow responses to maintenance requests, and occasional odors in memory care apartments. Room size is a common practical complaint—many units are small and may not fit two people or sizable furniture, which factors into suitability decisions for some families.
Dining and activities: Dining receives mixed feedback. Multiple reviewers report well-balanced meals with good portions and desserts, while others strongly criticize the food quality, describing it as unappealing or horrible. Activities programming is often cited as a strength—engaging offerings, cognitive programs like IN2L, and daily activities that keep residents involved—yet a subset of families feels there are too few activities for more active or social residents. Participation varies by resident preference and capability, which influences perceptions of the activities program.
Safety and resident wellbeing: Several serious safety-related complaints arise repeatedly: missed incontinence care leading to soiled briefs, lack of supervision resulting in falls being unattended for extended periods, failure to provide call buttons or to respond promptly when called, and placement/policy decisions that led to residents being in inappropriate levels of care. Families report instances where promises of monitoring and observation were not consistently kept. These safety-related lapses contrast sharply with many other reviews that praise attentive nursing and competent Alzheimer’s care in specific units.
Administrative policies and cost concerns: Multiple reviewers raise concerns about cost, nonrefundable move-in fees, Medicaid transition policies that can result in room downgrades, and an impression that occupancy and financial considerations influence placement decisions. Some families reported refunds for supplies that were not provided; others observed a mismatch between the care they paid for and care actually delivered. This creates distrust for some prospective residents and relatives.
Patterns and takeaways: The reviews collectively paint a picture of a facility that has many strengths—compassionate direct caregivers, clean and pleasant common areas, good therapy services, and strong individual staff members who make meaningful differences. At the same time, systemic issues—primarily understaffing, inconsistent management response, lapses in basic care routines (bathing, incontinence care, timely assistance), and inconsistent dining and maintenance experiences—are recurring and significant. The community appears capable of providing excellent care in many situations, particularly where staffing and management are functioning well, but prospective residents and families should carefully evaluate staffing levels, ask specific questions about night and weekend coverage, verify policies around Medicaid transitions and fees, and consider room size and HVAC options. Visiting during different shifts, speaking directly with nursing leadership and the wellness coordinator, and asking for references from current families (especially in memory care) would help validate whether the positive experiences described by many are consistent and whether the operational concerns have been addressed.
