Overall impression: Reviews of Canterbury Place are highly mixed, showing a strong split between families who experienced deeply compassionate, attentive care—especially around hospice and end-of-life—and families who encountered serious operational, safety, and communication breakdowns. A recurring theme is that individual caregivers can be exemplary (many reviewers praise specific nurses and aides by name), while systemic problems at the facility level introduce risk, stress, and occasionally alarming incidents. The result is a facility that some families strongly recommend and others strongly advise against.
Care quality and staff behavior: Many reviewers highlight compassionate, patient, and empathetic staff who go out of their way to make residents and families comfortable. Multiple comments single out individuals (Bob, RN Jessica, Barb, Dr. Z and several hospice nurses) for exceptional bedside manner, support for family members, and strong end-of-life care. Conversely, there are repeated complaints about unprofessional behavior by specific staff and leadership (DON Lucy, nurse Janet, an unprofessional scheduler) and reports of rudeness, dishonesty, and sneaky scheduling practices. Staffing shortages are frequently mentioned and appear to be a root cause for many negative experiences: long call-bell response times, delayed or inadequate bathing, and staff being stretched too thin. This contributes to inconsistent care quality—some residents receive excellent attention while others suffer neglect.
End-of-life and hospice services: Hospice care is one of the most polarizing areas in the reviews. Many families describe hospice nurses and teams as compassionate, gentle, and invaluable during final days—reporting pain-free comfort and staff who treat the family like an extension of care. However, there are also severe and specific logistical complaints related to deaths at the facility: delayed notification of family after a resident's death, no on-site body freezer or morgue access, alleged harassment to immediately arrange pickup of the deceased, and claims that these lapses led to extra funeral costs. One review mentions a possible funeral-home arrangement that mitigated the problem, but the core issue is inconsistent policies and procedures for post-death handling that caused distress for some families.
Safety, infection control, and equipment: Several reviewers raise red flags about infection control and resident safety. Reports include dirty rags with feces left on beds, references to C. diff risk, and sightings or signs of roaches and rats. Equipment problems were also raised—most notably an insufficient number of Hoyer lifts, with staff having to share lifts between patients, which has implications for both resident safety and infection control. There are direct allegations of staff ignoring residents in emergencies (a nurse ignoring a resident on the floor) and at least one allegation of physical abuse (a patient being slapped by a CNA) that was reportedly covered up. These are serious concerns that indicate inconsistent adherence to safety protocols and supervision.
Facility environment and amenities: Impressions of the physical environment vary. Many reviewers describe the facility as clean, beautiful, and peaceful with comfortable rooms, a welcoming lounge area with snacks and drinks, and a generally warm atmosphere. Others describe it as old, dark, dreary, or run-down. Dining quality is another area of clear inconsistency: multiple reports of cold dinners, scalding drinks, trays being placed incorrectly in warmers, mislabeled meals, and food described as nearly inedible. Conversely, some families praise the facility kitchen access and comfort. Physical therapy receives positive mentions in multiple reviews, and on-site dialysis and support for long-term residency are noted as conveniences.
Communication, management, and administration: A major negative pattern is poor communication and administrative errors. Complaints include slow transfer request processing, scheduling errors, inadequate documentation, and a rude or unhelpful front desk in several reports. At the same time, some reviewers appreciated open communication, being asked what they wanted, and staff who explained options and respected family decisions. This contrast suggests variability in management practices and frontline staff training or oversight. Several reviewers cite dishonest or misleading behavior by specific administrative staff. Positive points in policy include a clearer-than-average COVID visitation policy allowing three visitors per day, which families appreciated during pandemic restrictions.
Notable patterns and contradictions: The reviews paint Canterbury Place as a facility where outcomes and experiences depend heavily on which staff members are on duty, which unit a resident is in, and possibly which shift. Strong, individualized caregiving and excellent hospice support coexist with operational failures—particularly around end-of-life logistics, infection control, and equipment shortages. Compliments about compassionate nurses, helpful therapy services, and accommodating policies (pet tolerance, family inclusion) contrast sharply with serious allegations of neglect, abuse cover-up, and unsanitary conditions.
Bottom line and considerations for prospective families: Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility's demonstrated strengths—compassionate individual caregivers, strong hospice nurses in many cases, helpful PT services, on-site dialysis, and family-focused touches—against recurring systemic weaknesses: understaffing, communication and scheduling breakdowns, serious end-of-life logistic lapses, infection control and pest reports, and equipment shortages. If considering Canterbury Place, visitors should (a) ask about staffing ratios and lift availability, (b) review the facility's post-death procedures and policies for body handling and funeral coordination, (c) inquire about infection control measures, pest management, and cleaning protocols, (d) request examples of how scheduling and communication errors are handled and documented, and (e) try to meet the specific staff who will provide direct care. The mixed nature of reviews suggests that care quality may be highly dependent on specific teams and management responsiveness, so a thorough, in-person assessment and clear contractual expectations are advisable.
