Overall sentiment in the reviews for Table Rock Memory Care Community is highly mixed and polarized, with a substantial number of very positive accounts praising staff compassion, memory-care expertise, and the facility atmosphere, while a significant cluster of negative reviews cites serious safety, care, management, and billing failures. The volume and severity of the negative reports (medication errors, hospitalization refusals, bedsores, residents left soiled, alleged thefts, and claims of locked rooms without food/water) coexist with multiple firsthand family reports of exceptional, nurturing care and active engagement. This split suggests significant inconsistency in care quality across time periods, shifts, and perhaps staff cohorts; several reviews explicitly contrast experiences before and after administrative changes.
Care quality and clinical safety are the most contentious themes. Positive reviews repeatedly describe competent med techs, nurses, and caregivers who provide compassionate, resident-focused support, particularly in dementia and memory-care programming. Families describe smooth admissions and transitions, attentive night staff, effective day activities, and a secure, comforting environment that keeps residents engaged. Conversely, other families report severe lapses: missed or wrong medications, unaddressed pain after falls, residents found lying in feces, stage 3 pressure ulcers, multiple ER visits, and being refused readmission after hospitalization. Those negative accounts also mention multiple state investigations or citations and claim the facility continued operating despite compliance issues. The co-occurrence of strong positive clinical experiences with very serious negative incidents points to variability in clinical competence and oversight.
Staffing, training, and workplace culture are recurring subthemes that help explain divergent experiences. Many reviews praise long‑tenured staff, teamwork, and caregivers who treat residents like family; several also single out specific employees for exemplary care. Others describe untrained CNAs, undereducated nurses, short‑staffing, and reports (alleged) of staff substance misuse. Some families noted management quickly removing problem employees when identified, while others say the administration is unresponsive, unprofessional, or even “creepy.” There are also positive notes about improvements after changes in management—multiple reviewers mention a new leadership team (Avamere Healthcare) and report operations, staffing direction, and cleanliness improving under the new regime. This suggests recent efforts at restructuring may be having some effect, but not uniformly or quickly enough to erase all prior issues.
Facilities, cleanliness, and dining again show a split. Many visitors and families describe a beautiful, homey building, pleasant common spaces, and clean rooms—others describe unclean bathrooms, feces on the floor, soiled clothing, and inadequate bathing frequency. Dining reviews vary: several families praise the food and mealtime engagement, while others report insufficient portions, lack of variety, staff eating resident food, and awkward meal service (e.g., delayed meal delivery and limited utensils during COVID restrictions). These contradictions reinforce the pattern of inconsistency; some wings or shifts may provide excellent housekeeping and culinary service while others fall short.
Management, communication, and billing are persistent trouble spots in the negative reviews. Common complaints include poor or unresponsive communication when families seek updates, billing errors (including double charges and overdraft fees), refunds not issued promptly or fully, and disputes involving Medicaid or estate payments. Some families said management refused to readmit residents after hospital stays or failed to be transparent about care incidents. There are multiple reports of frequent administrator turnover and state involvement, which heightens family concern about institutional stability and regulatory compliance. On the positive side, several reviewers praise polite front‑desk staff, a professional intake process, and administrators who provide thorough guidance through questions when things are going well.
A notable pattern in the dataset is the dichotomy of strong praise for individual caregivers versus criticism of systemic issues. Many reviews emphasize that when caregivers are engaged, the residents flourish—feeling safe, engaged, and loved. Yet systemic deficiencies (training, staffing ratios, oversight, complaint resolution, and billing practices) can undermine those individual efforts and, in some reported cases, lead to harm. There are also recurrent recommendations from reviewers: visit in person, ask specific questions about staffing levels, medication administration policies, incident reporting, state citations and remediation, and billing practices before committing. Several families explicitly recommend or discourage the facility based on the time period of their interaction (e.g., before/after management change).
In summary, Table Rock Memory Care Community receives both wholehearted endorsements for compassionate, dementia-focused care and deep criticism for dangerous lapses in safety, oversight, and business practices. Positive themes are concentrated around caring staff, engaging activities, memory-care specialization, and an inviting physical environment—especially under newer management in some reports. Negative themes include serious safety incidents (medication errors, neglect, bedsores), poor cleanliness in some cases, billing disputes, inconsistent leadership, and alleged unethical behavior. Prospective families should weigh these conflicting accounts, confirm current management status and recent state inspection history, tour the facility multiple times across different days/shifts, and ask for specifics about medication safety, staffing ratios, staff training, incident investigation procedures, and billing/refund policies before making placement decisions.
