Overall impression: Reviews for The Florence Presbyterian Community are highly mixed, showing a strong dichotomy between families who experienced compassionate, effective care (especially in rehab and end-of-life situations) and those who reported serious lapses in basic medical monitoring, hygiene, and responsiveness. Positive comments emphasize an excellent rehab program, caring nurses and CNAs, a welcoming atmosphere in assisted living areas, attractive grounds and memory-care rooms, and meaningful activities. Negative comments are frequent and sometimes describe urgent safety issues, medication concerns, and breakdowns in leadership and communication.
Care quality and clinical concerns: A recurring and serious theme is inconsistent clinical monitoring and delayed or absent responses to call lights. Several reviewers describe delays in nurse response, unmet toileting needs, and failures to change bedding. There are multiple reports of medication management problems: medication left unattended, suspected misdosage of lactulose, and medication discontinuations leading to harm or hospitalization. One review cited a UTI and elevated ammonia with ER transfer and another described a near-death scenario attributed to inadequate assessment. Many families also report that an on-site physician was not involved or residents were not seen by a doctor during admission, raising concerns about clinical oversight. While the rehab team receives consistent praise for OT/PT/speech outcomes, the facility appears less consistent in basic nursing care and medical oversight.
Staff behavior, culture, and consistency: Reviews paint a split picture of personnel. Numerous posts praise individual nurses, CNAs, and a named case manager (Wendy Lynch) for being attentive, compassionate, and close partners with families—especially in rehab and end-of-life contexts. Conversely, a substantial number of reviews describe staff as dismissive, lounging during shifts, using cell phones while providing care, ignoring call lights, and in some cases being dishonest. Night shift staff quality is flagged repeatedly. Several reviewers state staff are overworked and underpaid, which may contribute to lapses. There are also reports of punitive or cold leadership behavior (including allegations of an angry nursing director), lack of accountability, and instances where families felt shunned after raising concerns.
Facility condition, housekeeping, and environment: Many reviewers applaud the facility’s appearance—beautiful landscaping, attractive memory care rooms, and a generally pleasant dining area. However, multiple accounts contradict that impression by reporting cracked walls, peeling paint, dirty bathrooms, unclean floors, and sheets that were never changed. Some reviewers reported food trays left from the day before and overall cleanliness lapses that create an unsafe or neglectful environment for vulnerable residents. These conflicting reports suggest variability by unit, shift, or over time.
Dining, activities, and resident life: Activity offerings and music therapy receive positive mentions; reviewers describe a robust schedule that encourages participation and fosters a home-like atmosphere in smaller assisted living settings. Dining is also noted as customizable in some areas and praised in some reviews for tasty meals. At the same time, several families complained about cold food, meals not provided on multiple occasions, missing dining supplies, and trays resembling hospital service rather than a dining experience, indicating inconsistency in food service quality.
Management, communication, and billing: Communication and leadership are major mixed themes. Some reviews indicate management is responsive and working on issues, while others report grievances ignored, management and directors unresponsive, and staff not held accountable. Billing and administrative problems were highlighted—unreturned voicemails from billing, an out-of-pocket charge of $3,600, and general confusion about pricing and care-based costs. Several reviews describe poor or delayed discharge instructions, missing prescriptions at discharge, and incorrect medication timing due to information gaps.
Patterns and takeaways: The strongest, most consistent positives relate to the rehab program, certain compassionate staff members, activities, and the aesthetic campus elements. The most alarming and recurring negatives are lapses in basic nursing care (call light responsiveness, toileting, bedding), medication safety concerns, inconsistent leadership response, cleanliness issues, and communication/billing failures. These are not isolated comments; multiple reviewers independently raised the same safety and responsiveness issues, suggesting systemic variability rather than a single bad incident.
Recommendations for prospective families: If considering this community, verify current staffing levels, nurse-to-resident ratios, and physician coverage during your tours. Ask specific questions about medication administration protocols, call-light response times, shift supervision (especially nights), and how grievances are handled. Request recent inspection or quality reports, and speak directly to family members of current residents when possible. For those prioritizing strong rehab outcomes, the facility’s OT/PT/speech services appear to be a relative strength. For medically complex residents or those needing consistent nursing oversight, families should weigh the positive testimonials against the documented reports of missed care and communication breakdowns.
Conclusion: The Florence Presbyterian Community offers tangible strengths—especially in rehabilitation, some very compassionate staff, attractive physical spaces, and engaging programming—but these are tempered by numerous reports of inconsistent nursing care, safety concerns, cleanliness issues, and administrative responsiveness. The overall pattern is one of high variability: excellent experiences for some residents and serious, potentially dangerous lapses for others. Prospective residents and families should conduct careful, specific inquiries and consider personal care needs and risk tolerance before choosing this facility.
