Overall impression: Reviews for Country Manor Personal Care Home are mixed and polarized, with a substantial split between reviewers who praise the facility's setting, room size, and some aspects of staff service, and those who report serious care, cleanliness, and management failures. Positive comments highlight the rural, country setting with attractive grounds and walking trails, spacious private and shared living options, and a welcoming restaurant-style dining room. Several reviewers say staff are friendly, accommodating, and handle meals, laundry, and medications well, and some callers report good communication and value for money. However, an equal or larger number of reviews raise significant concerns about resident safety, staff competence, facility upkeep, and administrative practices.
Care quality and safety: The most serious and recurrent negative theme concerns neglect and poor medical attention. Multiple reviewers allege neglectful behavior—failure to respond to health deterioration, insufficient assistance getting residents out of bed, and dismissing symptoms that later developed into pneumonia. There are specific alarming claims including open sores, toe loss, residents found without shoes, and reports that staff gave a resident vape. One review reported that the Department of Aging was attempting to close the facility, which amplifies regulatory concern. Conversely, other reviewers say staff were knowledgeable and thorough, indicating a significant inconsistency in the standard of care across residents or shifts.
Staffing, professionalism, and communication: Staffing is described inconsistently: some reviewers state the facility is adequately staffed, while others report very few staff on duty and advise families to find a different location. Professionalism and friendliness also vary—there are accounts of helpful, accommodating personnel alongside reports of unfriendly or unprofessional staff, poor communication, and broken promises. Several reviews emphasize poor follow-through on commitments and inadequate responses to calls for help. Administrative issues also show up in the social services area—one reviewer reported the social worker was unfamiliar with resources beyond a narrow radius.
Facilities and cleanliness: Physical conditions are likewise mixed. Positive comments note clean, spacious rooms with no odor and well-kept dining areas. Negative comments point to stinky areas, old mattresses, outdated furnishings, unpainted walls, boxes left in rooms, and rooms being shown before they were ready. Bathroom arrangements are a frequent source of dissatisfaction: shared bathrooms, need to leave one’s room to shower, and in at least one report, a lack of restrooms or inconvenient bathroom layout. The beautician lacking a dryer chair is a minor but illustrative example of equipment and amenity shortcomings.
Dining and activities: The dining room and meal service receive both praise and criticism. Some reviewers describe the dining area as nice and say staff take care of meals well, even citing value for money. Others criticize the meals for lacking visual appeal and flavor. Activities are limited—some constraints were attributed to COVID restrictions, and overall group options are reported as restricted, leading to a perceived lack of personal engagement and stimulation for residents.
Administration, billing, and COVID handling: Administrative problems include missing monthly billing statements and an unclear or absent billing system. Cost is a recurring concern—some reviewers feel fees are high relative to fixed incomes. COVID management is another flashpoint: at least one reviewer reports that staff denied any COVID cases but later experienced an outbreak, suggesting failures in transparency or infection control protocols. Visitation policies are also reported as restrictive or inconsistently enforced by some families.
Patterns and takeaways: The reviews suggest the facility may perform well in a number of operational areas (grounds, room size, dining setup, and certain staff members) but has inconsistent delivery on core caregiving responsibilities and regulatory compliance. The most critical red flags are multiple accounts of neglect and poor clinical outcomes, serious hygiene and wound issues, inconsistent staffing, poor communication, and administrative/billing shortcomings. At the same time, credible positive reports indicate pockets of good practice—clean spacious rooms, helpful staff, and pleasant dining experiences are not uncommon.
Recommendation for prospective families: Because feedback is polarized and contains safety-related allegations, prospective residents and families should conduct in-person, multiple visits across different days and shifts; ask for staffing ratios, staff training/certification, and infection-control policies; request recent inspection reports and any Department of Aging actions; verify billing procedures and obtain written financial statements; and speak with current residents’ families about care consistency. If possible, visit during meal times and activity periods to observe food quality and engagement, and check bathing arrangements and room readiness. Given the serious negative reports, particularly regarding medical neglect and regulatory attention, these due-diligence steps are especially important before making placement decisions.
