Overall sentiment across these reviews is largely positive with strong emphasis on the quality of direct caregiving, a family-like atmosphere, and a generally well-kept, safe facility — but there are consistent, important caveats around staffing consistency, dining quality, management/organization, and isolated but serious cleanliness/neglect reports.
Care quality and staff: The dominant theme is that many reviewers experience compassionate, attentive, and knowledgeable staff. Multiple accounts praise nurses, resident assistants, and memory care teams for individualized care, effective redirection for dementia, timely post-fall reports, and strong clinical support including on-site nursing, physician involvement, and PT/rehab services. Several reviews describe seamless transitions, proactive communications from staff, and caregivers who learn and call residents by name. Memory care is frequently singled out for its smaller, home-like setting, life-skills stations, purposeful activities, and staff who form close bonds with residents. However, this strength is not uniform: numerous reviews mention high turnover, understaffing at peak times (holidays or busy shifts), and variability in caregiver skill. A small but notable number of reviews describe poor care experiences, including an extreme account of unsanitary conditions and inadequate incident reporting. These represent outliers but are significant and point to inconsistent oversight.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: Many reviewers praise the building — noting renovations, modernized sections, natural light, attractive interiors, and well-maintained common areas and grounds. Residents and families comment positively on apartment-like rooms, grooming standards, and amenities such as a hair salon, theater, and a fenced outdoor area. The community is described as safe, with a proactive COVID-19 approach and low case counts reported. Conversely, some reviews raise concerns about cleanliness in individual living units and bathrooms, laundry mix-ups, and occasional lapses in housekeeping. There are references to older areas that have not been updated and to parking/lighting issues outside the building. The combination of mostly positive facility impressions with isolated cleanliness/maintenance complaints suggests generally good upkeep but some inconsistent execution at the unit level.
Dining and nutrition: Dining is one of the most recurrent and mixed topics. Several families and residents praise appetizing meals, good dining staff, and satisfying food after renovations. At the same time, a substantial number of reviewers report inconsistent food quality, limited variety, small portions, and reduced beverage options — especially during pandemic-related lockdowns when meals were delivered to rooms. Some reviewers explicitly worry about weight loss risk tied to meal sizes and variety. Management is repeatedly urged by reviewers to address ongoing food-preparation and menu issues. Overall, dining is a tangible area for improvement: while many enjoy the meals, the frequency and consistency of complaints mean the community would benefit from focused attention on menu variety, portioning, and consistency of meal service.
Activities and resident life: Activity programming is generally a strong suit with many mentions of music, crafts, dance, theater nights with popcorn, crafts, and creative memory-care programming. Several families appreciate photos of residents participating and report that activities have been brought back post-pandemic. A minority of reviewers, however, say activity levels are limited or that there are fewer outings and outside activities than they expected. Most descriptions indicate engaging, diverse programming, especially within memory care, but the variability suggests the strength of activities may depend on staffing and the activity director’s presence.
Management, communication, and administration: Reviews about management are mixed. Many families commend specific leaders and directors (named staff receive praise), describing smooth move-ins, excellent sales and transition support, and good communication from nurses and directors. Conversely, other reviewers report problematic management behaviors — disorganization, high leadership turnover, pricing discrepancies, delayed return of personal belongings, and an overly bureaucratic executive approach. Tour experiences varied: some tours were exemplary and informative, while others left families unclear about placement or the memory care unit. Communication also varies: while many families receive timely updates and collaborative care planning, others describe slow responsiveness and poor proactive communication. These mixed signals point to inconsistent managerial execution across shifts or tenure of leadership.
Cost, value, and logistics: Many reviewers find the community affordable or competitively priced in the area, with special offers and perceived fair value. Still, there are complaints about a la carte pricing, unclear fees, and lack of deferment programs or timing restrictions for benefits. Practical logistics also factor into some families’ decisions: requests to provide furniture in shared rooms, distance (some drive times up to 50 minutes), parking challenges, and elevator access concerns for second-floor residents were mentioned.
Notable risks and recommendations: While overwhelmingly positive reports about staff and the homelike environment are frequent, the recurring negatives — staffing inconsistencies, dining quality/portion problems, occasional cleanliness lapses, and management variability — are significant. The presence of at least one serious neglect allegation (unsanitary conditions, blood/feces) underscores the need for careful oversight, an emphasis on incident reporting protocols, and clear remediation steps by leadership. Families should ask about staff turnover rates, dining menus and nutrition monitoring, housekeeping protocols, incident reporting procedures, access to clinical care for specialized needs (e.g., colostomy management), and transparent pricing before committing. For the community, priorities would be stabilizing staffing, standardizing dining quality, strengthening housekeeping accountability, and improving consistent communication with families.
Conclusion: Legacy Village of Hendersonville receives substantial praise for its caring staff, memory-care strength, engaging activities, clinical supports, renovated spaces, and overall safe environment. These positives make it an attractive choice for many families seeking assisted living or memory care. However, repeated concerns around inconsistent staffing, dining variability, occasional housekeeping and management lapses, and some service/placement uncertainties mean prospective residents and families should conduct detailed tours, meet clinical leadership, and verify policies on meals, staffing, incident reporting, and costs to ensure the community matches their expectations and needs.
