Overall sentiment in these reviews is sharply divided: multiple reviewers express strong positive experiences while a substantial portion report serious care, management, and supply concerns. The result is a highly polarized picture where the same facility is described by some as clean, homey, and well-run and by others as neglectful, unsafe, and poorly managed. This split suggests either inconsistent day-to-day operations, significant variation by shift or manager, or strong differences in expectations among reviewers.
Care quality: Reviews range from daily vitals checks and attentive disability-related shower assistance to allegations of neglect, favoritism, harsh treatment, and even abuse. Several reviewers explicitly state that residents suffered from neglect or mistreatment, with at least one report indicating weight loss because residents were not eating. Conversely, others praise routine health monitoring and report staff who are caring and professional. The contrast points to variability in the level of hands-on caregiving and raises red flags that families should verify staffing ratios, supervision, and care protocols in person.
Staff and management: Staff descriptions are inconsistent. Positive reviews highlight friendly, helpful, and professional employees and caring owners who communicate well. Negative reviews portray short-tempered staff, favoritism, theft/misplacement of belongings, mistreatment of both residents and employees, and owners or family members described in very negative terms. Multiple mentions that the facility is "nice when people are around" but "unreliable after closing" imply uneven coverage and possible supervisory gaps during certain hours. One review singled out a single manager who treated residents decently, which may indicate individual staff members can significantly affect resident experiences.
Facilities and amenities: Several reviewers call out a beautiful, spotless building with clean grounds and a gazebo, and some specifically note no odors and a well-maintained environment. However, conflicting reports exist about outdoor seating (some note an outdoor gazebo; others say there is no outdoor seating), and there are concrete facility complaints: a recurring problem is lack of air conditioning in resident rooms with only the main area cooled. Other amenities are reportedly missing at times — no toilet paper, soap, paper towels, condiments, or an ice machine — which reviewers frame as evidence of cutting corners on basic supplies.
Dining and nutrition: Food reviews are also mixed. Positive accounts describe home-cooked meals, ample servings, nightly snacks, and a wide variety of options. Negative accounts describe terrible food, no condiments, and residents not eating the meals provided, leading to weight loss and reliance on DoorDash. These conflicting statements suggest variability in food quality, portioning, or meal service consistency, and highlight a critical area to verify (menu planning, special-diet accommodations, resident feedback mechanisms).
Activities and therapy: Multiple reviewers noted an absence of structured activities or a physical therapy room. While some residents enjoy passive amenities such as wildlife viewing, there is a clear lack of reports about organized recreational programming or on-site therapy spaces. This indicates limited opportunities for engagement and rehabilitation within the facility as reported by several reviewers.
Notable patterns and concerns: The most significant pattern is inconsistency — across care, staffing, meals, and supplies. Serious allegations (theft, mistreatment, unethical management, cutting corners) appear alongside statements praising the same facility’s cleanliness and staff. The disparity suggests that experiences may depend heavily on timing (which staff are on duty), which manager is present, or who is reporting. Claims of missing essential supplies and basic comfort issues (AC in rooms) are practical, measurable problems; allegations of theft and abuse are severe and require verification through inspection or regulatory records.
Recommendations for prospective residents/families: Given the polarized feedback, anyone considering The Faidley House should conduct an in-person visit at different times of day, ask for a tour of resident rooms (check for in-room climate control), review staffing schedules and turnover, speak directly with current residents and family members, review menus and sample meals, verify how personal property is handled and how incidents are reported and resolved, and check state inspection reports and complaint history. Because positive and negative reports coexist, prospective families should seek corroborating evidence rather than relying on any single review.
In summary, these reviews portray a facility that can appear very good under some circumstances (clean, well-fed, caring staff and owners) but is also accused of serious and systemic problems by other reviewers (neglect, theft, lack of supplies, inconsistent management). The conflicting accounts merit careful, targeted due diligence focused on staffing consistency, resident safety, meal quality, and facility maintenance before making placement decisions.
