Overall sentiment across the reviews is polarized: many families and residents praise the staff, activities, and certain aspects of the facility, while a substantial number of reviews raise serious concerns about management, memory-care quality, safety, and legal/guardianship practices.
Care quality and staff: One of the clearest patterns is a strong appreciation for many direct-care staff. Numerous reviewers call the assisted-living staff "dedicated," "hard‑working," "caring," and say caregivers go above and beyond. Specific staff and roles receive praise (activities director Patrick, Marketing Director Sam, intake coordinator, and a nurse named Susan receive positive mentions). Families report timely communication, thorough updates, and peace of mind because staff prioritized care. However, this positive view is inconsistent: several reviews describe memory-care staff as inexperienced or underpaid and say management’s culture has disconnected leadership from frontline care. There are also serious reports of a head nurse being "mean and vindictive," and repeated complaints that some caregivers are uncaring or overworked.
Memory care vs assisted living: Reviews show a marked split between the assisted-living side and memory-care unit. Assisted living is frequently described positively — clean common areas, welcoming atmosphere, active calendars, good resident interaction, and residents who feel at home. By contrast, many reviews single out the memory-care unit for problems: persistent odors (urine/poop), reports of no air conditioning, poor cleanliness, under-stimulation (few or no activities), and understaffing with reported ratios around 7:1. Some reviewers describe the memory-care area as smelling like a basement or being depressing and unkempt. A smaller subset of memory-care reviews does note improvements (new living room furniture and odor elimination) and compassionate caregivers, suggesting variability over time or between shifts.
Facilities and rooms: The facility’s location, parking, and common spaces receive consistent praise: a spacious lobby, nice neighborhood, and well-maintained communal areas are positives. Practical room features often cited include private bathrooms, an in-room fridge and microwave, and private dining for guests. But many reviewers complain rooms are very small, feel institutional (fluorescent lighting), or lack basic furnishings (no TV, chair, or dresser) in some units. Outdoor access and walking paths are present but described as incomplete or requiring crossing a parking lot. Remodeling and updates have been implemented in places (removal of equipment/sauna, new furniture) but some outdoor fenced areas and sections of memory care reportedly need further attention.
Dining and activities: Activity programming is a frequent strength — ice cream socials, Friday music, a packed calendar, and many family events led by a long‑tenured activities director are repeatedly praised. Many residents are described as engaged and happy with the social life. Dining reviews are mixed: several reviewers report very good, varied meals, while others report mediocre food, long waits, or forgotten meals. Some dietary-restriction-related blandness was noted. Memory care, in particular, is criticized by multiple reviewers for a lack of engaging activities and poor dining experiences.
Management, contracts and legal/guardianship issues: A recurring and significant theme is concern about management practices and governance. Multiple reviews state distrust of administration, unresponsiveness, and failure to keep promises (transportation, walking assistance, contractual commitments). Worse, several reviewers raise severe guardianship-related allegations: residents or guardians not being notified of guardianship actions, denial of residents' mail and legal documents, lack of court notification when required, and potential postal-law violations. There are reports of eviction notices served over room cost/contract issues, and at least one allegation of third‑party exploitation related to an estate. These are high‑risk governance issues that families should investigate thoroughly, especially if a loved one has a guardian.
Safety, medications and incidents: Safety-related concerns include reports of medication errors (wrong medication, missed/ignored orders), slow call-button response times, at least one assault in the lobby, and a resident wandering into a kitchen with staff reprimanding the resident loudly. Laundry mismanagement and poor room cleaning also raise dignity and infection-control concerns. Conversely, some families explicitly state they feel their loved one is safe and well cared for, indicating an uneven experience across shifts, units, or time.
Cost and value: Several reviewers mention the facility’s cost structure (deposit $1,000, services charged at $50 per point) and note Medicaid spend-down is accepted. Opinions on value vary: some say the community provides good value for the money; others describe high monthly fees, many upcharges for personal services, and poor value — especially for memory care where costs are high but care is judged inadequate.
Patterns, improvements, and recommendations: Two large patterns emerge: (1) many families are very positive about direct-care staff and the social/activities life in assisted living, and (2) there are multiple, sometimes serious complaints focused on management, memory care quality, legal/guardian issues, and safety/medication practices. Some reviewers note improvements after reported problems (remodeling, new furniture, odor elimination, Zoom meetings with state ombudsmen and management), suggesting some issues have been addressed in places. Given the mix of glowing and alarming reports, prospective residents and families should do targeted due diligence: visit multiple times (including unannounced visits and evenings), ask for written guarantees of promised services, verify staffing ratios and training in memory care, confirm medication and incident-reporting procedures, request documentation of how mail/legal documents are handled, clarify contract terms around room changes/eviction, and confirm recent inspection/ombudsman findings. If a guardian is involved, verify court approvals and that the facility will not withhold mail or legal notices.
Bottom line: Tanner Spring Assisted Living & Memory Care has many strengths — caring front-line staff, a strong activities program, convenient location, and some well-maintained common areas. However, the reviews reveal serious and recurring problems in management responsiveness, memory-care cleanliness and staffing, medication and safety incidents, and troubling guardianship/administrative practices. Experiences are highly variable; assisted living tends to receive more positive feedback than memory care. Families should weigh the positive personal-staff interactions and activity offerings against the reports of governance, safety, and memory-care concerns and conduct focused, documented follow-up before placement.
