Overall sentiment from these reviews is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial number of reviewers describe excellent, compassionate and professional care, while many others report serious safety, hygiene, management and integrity problems. The most consistent positive theme is that many direct‑care staff (CNAs, nurses and some administrative personnel) are described as caring, attentive and competent. Several reviews single out individual staff members by name for praise, and multiple families reported good rehabilitation outcomes (PT/OT), effective diabetes management, respectful hospice/long‑term care, and frequent emotional support and communication from caregiving staff. Dining receives strong praise in many reviews, with comments about tasty meals, menu choices and specific favorites (carrot cake, seafood and fruit salad). Physical spaces are often described as comfortable, well‑lit and clean in positive accounts.
However, there is a prolonged and recurring set of serious concerns across many negative reviews. Staffing shortages, long shifts, perceived underfunding and leadership problems are commonly cited as root causes for poor performance and inconsistent care. Problems attributed to these systemic issues include medication delays, missed medical monitoring (delayed blood pressure checks, wound inspections), lack of response to call buttons, and delayed pain medication — all of which have been associated by reviewers with falls, ambulance transports and even ICU admissions. Multiple reviewers described safety lapses such as missing side rails, bedpan mishandling, MRSA isolation delays, and instances where residents fell or needed emergency care. Those are not isolated anecdotes; they recur in different forms across the complaint set.
Infection control and hygiene appear inconsistent: many reviewers say the facility is clean and fresh, while others report urine odors, full commodes, filthy hallways, dirty diaper containers and poor hand hygiene. Food service is likewise mixed: several families applaud the quality and choices, while others described cold food, poor preparation and alleged food poisoning. The divergence suggests variability by shift, unit, or time period rather than a uniformly good or bad dining program.
Property and trust issues are also prominent. Numerous reviewers reported missing personal items (hearing aids, clothing, dentures, pills) and unresolved theft allegations, which damaged trust. Administrative and front‑desk errors (wrong room transfers, incorrect phone numbers, unreturned calls) compound family frustration. Several reviewers described billing disputes, attempts to bill for extra days, or poor disclosure of AMA policies and insurance consequences. These operational and billing concerns feed into a perception of weak accountability and poor management oversight.
Leadership and culture concerns show up repeatedly: reviewers allege poor management, unprofessional behavior, threats or retaliation when families complain, and low resident morale due to lack of activities and visible administrative engagement. Some accounts describe new administrators who are not visible or are perceived as hiding, contributing to an impression of neglect at the managerial level. At the same time, many reviewers explicitly say that some staff are doing their best despite systemic constraints, suggesting that staffing levels and leadership (rather than the frontline workers alone) are a major driver of variability.
There are several serious, noteworthy incidents mentioned across reviews that should not be overlooked: alleged food poisoning leading to ICU care; an electricity cut that left residents without communication or TV/AC; allegations that a physician filed false health reports; repeated reports of emergency transfers after delays in care; and multiple mentions that complaints were escalated to state regulators. These incidents raise red flags that warrant verification by prospective families, and some reviewers explicitly called for regulatory checks or closure.
In sum, Avamere at Three Fountains shows clear strengths — particularly in the dedication and compassion of many frontline caregivers, effective therapy services for some patients, and high points in dining and room comfort — but also substantial and recurring weaknesses around staffing, clinical safety, hygiene, property security and management/administrative oversight. The pattern is one of inconsistent quality with sharp contrasts between excellent individual experiences and deeply troubling negative incidents. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sets of information, ask specific operational questions (staffing ratios by shift, incident and infection reports, theft prevention protocols, wound‑care and medication administration processes, billing policies and AMA procedures), tour multiple units at different times, and seek recent regulatory inspection results and references from current families to get a current, verified picture before making placement decisions.
