The reviews of Faithful Living present a highly mixed picture with strong polarization: many reviewers praise the staff, activities, and community atmosphere, while a notable minority report serious safety, cleanliness, and management concerns. Across reviews there are repeated positive themes: several families and long-term residents describe staff as caring, attentive, and compassionate. The activities program—often highlighted for its variety, outings (such as baseball games and day trips), and a dedicated activities director—appears to be a consistent strength. Many reviewers emphasize a strong social environment where residents make friends, participate in events like karaoke and bingo, and benefit from veteran-focused programming (veteran club meetings, pinning ceremonies, and VA assistance). Multiple accounts highlight responsive maintenance, pleasant outdoor spaces, and in many units good housekeeping, clean rooms, and well-prepared meals. Numerous residents and families report smooth transitions into the home, a family-like atmosphere, and a sense of safety and comfort.
However, an important and recurring counterpoint is the frequency and severity of negative reports from other reviewers. Several complaints allege significant lapses in clinical care and administration: incorrect medication orders, alleged falsified nursing credentials, and night-shift neglect or missed checks for hospice residents. Some reports describe unacceptable hygiene and cleanliness problems (dirty bathrooms, holes in sheets, cigarette butts on patios), missing personal items, and reports of sheets not being changed for long periods. There are also disturbing accounts of residents being put outside for fire drills in cold weather without shoes and residents observed walking in the dining room without shoes—issues that raise both dignity and safety concerns. These negative reports are not isolated to minor dissatisfaction but include accusations of abuse, severe management failings, and even financial mismanagement in handling supplements and other funds according to some reviewers.
Management and organizational consistency emerge as a central theme explaining the review divergence. Multiple reviewers note clear improvement under new management and describe the facility as recently cleaner, friendlier, and better organized. Conversely, others allege that prior or current management was negligent, engaged in firings or cover-ups, and ran the place into disrepair, with some calling for regulatory attention. This pattern suggests substantial variability over time and between units: some wings or cohorts appear well-run and well-staffed, offering excellent care and engaging programming, while other parts of the facility or periods in time experienced under-staffing, unprofessional behaviors, and poor oversight. Staffing issues are also recurring—some reviews praise particular employees and med techs, while others say nursing is not responsive and that staff are overworked and underpaid.
Dining and activities receive generally positive mentions but with caveats. Many reviewers appreciate the variety and quality of meals, and the kitchen staff are sometimes singled out as helpful. Nevertheless, a subset of residents find portion sizes problematic or meals inconsistent. Activities are frequently praised for being lively and numerous, but some mobile residents and family members feel that programming is not sufficiently tailored to higher-functioning residents, indicating a potential mismatch in activity offerings for different resident ability levels.
Facility condition is another mixed area. Several reviews describe newly refreshed, clean, and comfortable spaces with ongoing painting and renovations, pleasant courtyards, and homey rooms. In contrast, other reviewers describe run-down or motel-like sections, poor cleanliness, and needed repairs. These differences are consistent with the broader pattern of variability across time and management. Veteran services are a notable strong suit for many reviewers: the facility's veteran programming, staff support for VA benefits, and veteran social activities are repeatedly praised.
In summary, Faithful Living draws strongly positive endorsements for its staff compassion, social programming, veteran focus, and for many residents a real sense of home and safety. Yet a significant set of concerning allegations about clinical care, medication handling, cleanliness, and management misconduct appear in a number of reviews. Prospective residents and families should weigh both sets of feedback carefully: visit multiple times, tour the particular unit they would reside in, ask for recent inspection reports, inquire specifically about credentials and medication administration processes, clarify management stability, and speak with current families and residents about recent changes. The overall impression is that quality at Faithful Living may depend heavily on timing, particular units, and current management—there are pockets of excellent care and engagement, but there are also serious red flags reported by several families that merit direct investigation before making placement decisions.
