The reviews present a highly mixed portrait of Laurel Glen at Memphis Assisted Living & Memory Care, with strongly polarized experiences. Many families and reviewers praise the staff and memory care unit: caregivers are frequently described as caring, compassionate, and willing to go above and beyond. Multiple comments single out the memory care unit as wonderful and well planned, and specific leaders (for example the Director of Nursing and the executive director) are commended for being attentive, delivering personal touches like breakfast service, and creating a welcoming environment. Several reviewers explicitly state they trust the facility with family members and offer strong recommendations based on positive, family-like care and helpful teamwork.
At the same time, other reviews raise very serious and specific concerns about safety, neglect, and management. Reported issues include missed basic care tasks (assistance with showers and dressing), residents being left in distress (including accounts of being left crying in bathrooms), and staff allegedly ignoring call buttons and falls. There are repeated mentions of understaffing and delayed responses to calls for help, which families connect to safety risks such as falls that required ambulance transport. Several reviewers describe incidents that escalated to police reports and allege staff misconduct including abuse, cursing at residents, theft, and failures to follow physicians' medication orders. These are severe allegations that indicate systemic and operational failures in certain cases.
Operational and safety systems are also a recurring theme. Families report outdated paging systems and inadequate panic or safety devices, and some specifically requested modern solutions such as GPS tracking to improve resident monitoring. Reviewers also express frustration that leadership sometimes appears unresponsive; while some accounts praise nursing and executive leadership as hands-on and caring, other families say management did not adequately address problems, prompting family members to get involved directly or offer to fund updates themselves. Relatedly, some reviews criticize prioritization of cosmetic projects (carpets, paint) over essential safety or care-related investments, perceiving poor value given the high monthly costs.
Facility condition and cleanliness receive mixed feedback. Several reviewers describe the facility as very clean and note pleasant common areas and an attractive layout—especially within the memory care unit—while at least one review mentions a bad odor and poor staff treatment tied to cleanliness concerns. Dining and activity specifics are not prominent in the summaries provided, so no consistent pattern about food or programming emerges from these reviews; the strongest facility-related positives center on layout, tidiness from some perspectives, and the welcoming nature of staff interactions.
Taken together, the pattern is one of inconsistency: many families have exceptional, trusting, and positive experiences largely because of compassionate, hands-on staff and attentive leaders, especially in memory care; however, other families report alarming lapses in basic care, safety monitoring, staffing levels, and management responsiveness that raise significant concerns. These divergent accounts suggest variability in day-to-day operations—possibly shift-to-shift or unit-to-unit differences—and indicate areas needing attention, including staffing adequacy, modernized safety/communication systems, consistent enforcement of care and medication protocols, transparent incident response, and prioritization of resident safety over purely cosmetic improvements. Prospective families should weigh the strong anecdotal praise for staff and memory care against the serious allegations and look for current, verifiable information about staffing ratios, safety systems, incident handling procedures, and leadership responsiveness before making placement decisions.
