The reviews for Good Samaritan Society - Sioux Falls Village are strongly mixed, with many reviewers praising the facility's environment, programs, and a substantial number of staff, while other reviewers report serious concerns about staff responsiveness, compassion, and policy enforcement. A recurring positive theme is the physical setting: multiple reviewers describe the facility as clean, bright, and cheery, with attractive garden and sitting areas. Rooms are described as nicely sized and customizable for personal decoration. Several reviews emphasize the quality of apartments and living units, calling them 'top-notch.' The twin-homes living arrangement is mentioned positively, and the facility appears to offer accommodations for residents with Alzheimer's, which is highlighted as a strength by families needing that level of care.
Dining and activities are another area of strength in the reviews. Many commenters note good lunches and overall high food quality. Activities receive repeated praise: reviewers mention daily coffee time, a variety of organized activities, and opportunities for residents to socialize and form friendships. The rehabilitation and therapy program is specifically noted as a positive service offering, and some reviews summarize the combination of amenities and programming as 'top-notch.' These elements contribute to an overall picture of an engaging environment for many residents.
Staff-related comments are polarized. A substantial number of reviewers describe the staff as caring, friendly, and supportive, with 'great nurses' and positive coworker relationships noted. These positive staff interactions are tied to good day-to-day experiences for many residents. However, contrasting comments report inconsistent staff quality: occasional 'terrible' nurses, apathetic or unresponsive staff, and even allegations of neglect. Several reviewers felt they had to actively pursue resolution of problems, which points to variable responsiveness from management or staff. The reviews suggest a workforce under strain during COVID-19 for which some reviewers express empathy and prayerful sentiments toward workers; yet others recount experiences perceived as uncaring or disrespectful.
Policy enforcement and management issues form a significant portion of the negative feedback. There are multiple mentions of strict or poorly handled mask and visitation policies, including at least one report where a family was prevented from saying farewell to a loved one. Some reviewers characterize enforcement as harassment and cite a lack of compassion in policy implementation. Additionally, allegations of understaffing and cleanliness problems appear in the negative comments, though these are not uniformly reported across reviews. Taken together, these complaints portray a pattern where institutional policies and staffing pressures have, in some cases, led to negative family experiences.
Overall, the sentiment is divided: many reviewers give high praise for facilities, food, activities, and a core of caring staff, while a smaller but vocal group reports serious problems with staff attitude, responsiveness, and policy enforcement that led to highly negative impressions. These polarized perspectives suggest that experiences may vary significantly by unit, staff on duty, or time period (especially during COVID-19). The most consistent positives are the environment, dining, activities, and therapy services; the most significant concerns are inconsistent care quality, occasional neglectful or apathetic staff behavior, and disputed visitation/mask policy handling. Prospective residents and families should weigh both the documented strengths and the reported concerns, recognizing the variability in individual experiences reflected in these reviews.
