Overall sentiment across the reviews for Maristone of Franklin is highly mixed and polarized, with many families describing exceptional, personalized care from frontline staff while a substantial number of other reviewers report serious lapses in safety, management, and basic operations. The facility shows clear strengths associated with its small size, a strong sense of community, and in multiple accounts a highly skilled and compassionate caregiving team. Several reviewers noted renovated, spacious apartment-style rooms, recent HVAC replacement, and culinary improvements under a trained chef producing meals made from scratch. Positive experiences frequently highlight a welcoming atmosphere, engaging activities (when present), in-house therapy and medical visits (NP/doctor), and staff who go above and beyond to create a home-like environment. Multiple reviews single out specific staff and leaders (e.g., Tina, Cheryl, certain activities staff) as standouts who deliver excellent communication and peace of mind for families.
However, recurring and significant negative themes appear throughout the reviews and cannot be overlooked. Many reviewers report chronic management instability — including frequent Executive Director and Director of Nursing turnover — and a heavy reliance on agency or temporary nursing and caregiving staff. This instability coincides with serious safety and quality concerns in several accounts: residents allegedly left on the floor after falls for hours, memory-care doors left unsecured, medication distribution and documentation problems (including reliance on paper MARs), and reports of neglect or abuse. Several reviewers also referenced regulatory scrutiny and a state investigation following ownership/management changes, which compounds concerns about leadership and oversight. These complaints are not isolated; multiple reviewers describe the same patterns of understaffing at night, inconsistent medication management, and poor incident communication with families.
Food, housekeeping, and daily operations show inconsistent performance in the reviews. While some families praise the dining program and a talented chef who prepares scratch meals and offers room service and choices, other reviewers report spoiled food, shortages (particularly at breakfast), and a decline in meal quality after staffing changes. Cleanliness is another area of divergence: many reviewers applaud the facility as clean and well cared-for, yet numerous reports describe urine or fecal odors in halls, unclean rooms, infrequent or missed laundry, and general housekeeping lapses. These contradictions likely reflect variability tied to staffing levels, leadership at specific times, and turnover.
Activities and memory-care programming are regularly mentioned as a strength by some and a severe weakness by others. Positive comments describe a robust activities schedule, religious services, bingo, painting, live music, and enthusiastic leadership from an activities director who engages residents. Conversely, multiple reviewers — particularly those with loved ones in memory care — reported minimal or no activities, understaffing that prevents engagement, and an activities director perceived as rude or ineffective. Memory care emerges as a particularly sensitive area: many complaints of inadequate staffing ratios (sometimes a single caregiver), poor layout or unsecured rooms, weight loss, overmedication concerns, and outright neglect lead some families to recommend against placing a loved one in the memory-care unit.
Communication and responsiveness by management present a bifurcated picture. Some families describe timely, helpful interactions with administration and feel the leadership is resident-focused and accessible. Others report unresponsive administrators, lack of follow-through on contracts, poor communication after incidents or deaths, and an overall impression that ownership is profit-driven and unresponsive. Several reviewers explicitly trace a decline in quality to a change of ownership and management; a subset of more recent reviews, however, mention that a newer Executive Director and renovation efforts have restored satisfaction for certain families, suggesting attempts at course correction that have not been uniformly experienced.
In sum, Maristone of Franklin demonstrates clear advantages associated with its small size, engaged caregivers, upgraded apartments, and — in many instances — high-quality nursing and culinary services. At the same time, there are repeated, serious complaints about management instability, staffing shortages, medication and documentation problems, safety incidents in memory care, and lapses in cleanliness and communication. These patterns create a highly inconsistent portrait: potential for excellent individualized care exists, but the risk of neglect or systemic failures appears elevated during periods of turnover or under agency staffing. Families considering Maristone should (1) ask detailed, written questions about current executive and clinical leadership stability, staffing ratios (especially nights and memory care), use of agency staff, and how medication administration and MARs are handled; (2) request recent survey or investigation results and remedial plans if referenced; (3) tour memory care areas and ask about secured doors, monitoring, and activity schedules; and (4) speak to current families or visit during different shifts to assess consistency. Given the mix of outstanding and alarming reports, placement decisions should be made cautiously and with direct verification of the specific units, staff, and policies that will affect a prospective resident.
