The reviews for Rose Of Sharon's Senior Villa present a strongly mixed picture with distinct positive and negative themes. On the positive side, multiple reviewers emphasize the facility's small size (six beds) and dementia focus, which can support more personalized attention. Several reviewers specifically praised well-trained, alert, and attentive staff, a locked facility for safety, clean residents (in some accounts), spacious and nicely decorated rooms, and a warm, cozy atmosphere. Dining is frequently mentioned as a strength by some residents and family members — described as "amazing" or "good" meals with caring service. The home appears to offer memory-focused activities and supervised outings to malls and parks, with limited travel designed to prioritize resident safety. Some reviewers explicitly state they would highly recommend the facility.
However, there are numerous and serious negative reports that contrast sharply with the positive accounts. Cleanliness and hygiene are recurring concerns in several reviews: reports include mold in showers and on chairs, filthy floors, furniture soiled with urine and feces, and residents being left soaked. These are significant infection-control and dignity issues for a residential care setting. Related facility and accessibility problems are also mentioned — malfunctioning or jammed doors and bathrooms that do not accommodate wheelchairs — which raise safety and compliance concerns for residents with mobility needs.
Staffing and care quality are another major area of divergence. While some reviewers describe attentive and well-trained staff, others report uncaring or explicitly abusive behavior: staff and nurses allegedly yelling at or laughing at residents, a rude administrator, and poor communication from management. There are also complaints about insufficient nursing coverage or lack of around-the-clock care, which would be critical for a dementia care population. The coexistence of very positive and very negative accounts suggests inconsistent performance across shifts or changes in staff/management over time.
Dining-related contradictions appear as well. Although several reviewers praise the meals and the kindness shown during mealtimes, other reports indicate problems such as ignoring prescribed diabetic diets, no meal refills, and limited meal offerings for some residents. Nonclinical amenities also drew criticism in some cases (for example, a television not connected in a room), which indicates variability in the resident experience.
Overall, the reviews describe a small, potentially home-like dementia care facility that can provide warm environment, meaningful activities, and good meals for some residents, but there are also multiple serious complaints around hygiene, accessibility, staff behavior, management communication, and clinical oversight. The pattern suggests significant inconsistency: some families encounter excellent care, while others report neglectful or abusive conditions. Prospective residents and families should treat the mixed reviews as a signal to perform careful, specific due diligence: tour the facility at different times of day, ask about current staffing levels and staff training, inspect cleanliness (bathrooms, common areas, resident rooms), verify infection control practices, review handling of special diets (e.g., diabetic plans), confirm accessibility for mobility devices, and ask how complaints are handled and whether there is 24/7 nursing coverage. Given the severity of some negative reports (mold, soiling, alleged staff abuse), verifying the facility’s current conditions and regulatory history before placing a loved one there would be particularly important.
