Overall sentiment across the review summaries is mixed but leans positive in terms of the facility’s physical environment and the compassionate attitude of many staff members. Multiple reviewers consistently praise the building itself — described as beautiful, new, bright, and well maintained — and highlight attractive common areas such as gardens, a community center vibe, and indoor/outdoor recreation space. Several families noted that residents adjusted well, enjoyed bus outings and day trips, and engaged with the activities program run by an activities coordinator. Dining is frequently mentioned positively: appetizing meals, snacks, and special treats (root beer floats) were appreciated. Personal care services such as haircuts and nail care are available, and some reviewers explicitly stated that residents appeared happy, safe, and well cared for after moving in.
Staff-related feedback is one of the most prominent themes and is decidedly mixed. Many reviews emphasize caring, polite, attentive, and helpful staff; staff interactions with residents were described as kind, patient, and supportive, and some families said the staff made the move-in transition easy. However, a recurring counterpoint is inconsistent staffing levels and weak management oversight. Several reviewers reported understaffing, which led to inconsistent care, slower service, and gaps in communication. A few accounts referenced disrespectful behavior and staff speaking down to residents, signaling that training and culture are uneven across shifts or teams. There are clear examples of excellent individual employees (new staff being called "awesome"), yet the overall picture is variable and appears dependent on specific staff on duty.
Care quality shows both strong and concerning reports. Positive reviews describe appropriate, compassionate memory-care services, timely medication administration (in some cases), and active engagement in memory-care activities. Conversely, other reviewers reported serious care problems: medication distribution errors, rooms and bathrooms left dirty, and a particularly troubling pattern of lost or misplaced clothing and personal belongings. One family explicitly moved their loved one out and reported measurable improvement (gained weight and became more active) after leaving, which underscores that some families experienced care levels below expectations. These divergent experiences suggest inconsistency in day-to-day care quality — some residents receive attentive, professional care while others encounter avoidable errors and lapses.
Operational and safety concerns appear repeatedly and merit attention. Multiple reviewers noted billing issues — slow billing, problems with invoicing, and at least one allegation of being overcharged for medical supplies. Communication lapses are also prominent: unanswered calls, ignored doorbells, and at least one instance where the wrong phone number was posted and calls were answered by a confused older gentleman, creating a potential safety and emergency-contact risk. Practical infrastructure problems were mentioned too: laundry limitations (single washer/dryer causing delays), HVAC/AC outages with noisy fans and heaters as temporary measures, and long walks to the dining room for some residents, affecting accessibility. Room size is another frequent complaint — several families described small or cramped rooms and bed-only accommodations that required families to provide furnishings.
Amenities and environment are mostly praised but with exceptions. While many reviewers applauded the common spaces, garden, and overall cleanliness and smell of the facility, a few reviewers said amenities were effectively non-existent or inadequate. Some noted crowding and odor in certain areas. The balance of comments implies that public areas are generally well kept and pleasant, but private room amenities and operational features (laundry, HVAC, storage for belongings) show variability and occasional shortcomings.
In summary, Cherrywood Memory Care appears to offer an attractive, well-appointed environment and several strengths in programming and staff compassion, with many families reporting positive transitions and satisfied residents. At the same time, there are multiple, recurring concerns — medication errors, lost belongings, inconsistent staffing and management, communication and billing problems, small rooms, and operational issues (laundry, HVAC, parking/access) — that create a mixed overall picture. The data suggest the facility can provide very good memory-care experiences when staffing is sufficient and management oversight is effective, but families should be aware of the variability and investigate these operational risks during tours: confirm medication protocols, ask about staff-to-resident ratios and training, verify emergency contact information, inspect private rooms for size and storage, inquire about laundry turnaround and HVAC reliability, and clarify billing practices. These steps will help prospective residents and families weigh the facility’s strong physical setting and active programming against the documented operational and consistency concerns.
