Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive for everyday living aspects while highlighting several serious and recurring operational concerns. A majority of reviewers praise the staff, cleanliness of common areas, modern facilities, active programming, and general sense of safety and community. Many families report that residents are engaged, well-cared for, and enjoy the activities, meals, and amenities. At the same time, there are a number of concentrated, severe complaints—most notably repeated bed bug infestations and serious management failures in addressing them—that significantly tarnish the otherwise favorable experiences.
Care quality and staff: Reviews frequently commend the staff as compassionate, attentive, and respectful. Multiple accounts describe staff going above and beyond, prompt emergency/help-button responses, monthly on-call physician visits, proactive care evaluations, and support with medication management and rehabilitation. Several reviewers identified the facility as providing a family-like atmosphere with caregivers who form meaningful relationships with residents. However, these positives are counterbalanced by isolated but troubling reports of neglect and dereliction of duty—examples include refusal to help change soiled residents, alleged mistreatment requiring EMS involvement, a bedbound resident developing a bedsore and needing wound-vac hospitalization, and at least one report sent to the Tennessee Board of Nursing. Staff turnover and hiring difficulties were also recurrent themes; some reviews attribute lapses in care to understaffing or staff resignations (in some cases caused by allergic reactions to infestations).
Facilities and living units: The building and common areas are often described as modern, spacious, and well-upgraded, with pleasant decor, new carpeting, balconies/views, and a variety of gathering spaces on each level. Amenities such as a hair salon/barber, rehabilitation room, exercise facilities, library, chapel, and gardens are consistently noted and appreciated. On the other hand, some reviewers report that individual apartments can be small, unfurnished upon move-in (requiring residents to bring furniture and a fridge), or feel 'hospital-like.' The multi-floor layout is seen as offering more gathering areas but poses mobility or orientation challenges for some residents, particularly those with cognitive impairment. There are also troubling accounts that the memory care unit is not sufficiently secure, which conflicts with other reviewers’ sense of safety from locked doors and attentive monitoring.
Dining and activities: The facility is praised for a varied activities program (crafts, games, bingo, exercise classes, bowling-style recreation, outings and social events) and for encouraging family participation. Reviewers repeatedly note a busy, engaging calendar that keeps residents active and social. Dining receives mixed but generally positive comments: many find the meals acceptable to good, with multiple meal times and options to preserve dining independence. Several reviewers praise the quality of food and regular meal service, while others say meals are inconsistently homemade or 'not the best' as the program evolves. Some specific issues include noise in the upstairs dining area and occasional comments that residents were fed too much or that food quality was being improved under a new food program.
Management, maintenance, and major concerns: The most serious and recurrent negative pattern concerns pest infestations—particularly bed bugs—and the facility’s handling of those incidents. Multiple independent summaries report bedbug infestations that were slow to be addressed, ignored maintenance requests, caregivers quitting due to allergic reactions, apartments rendered uninhabitable, residents temporarily moved to hotels, and claims of discarded possessions with no compensation. These reports describe significant personal and financial consequences (thousands of dollars in discarded possessions) and describe management as unresponsive or ineffective in remediation and communication. Related administrative criticisms include slow bookkeeping/billing corrections, lack of visitor/ front-desk awareness, and difficulties with readmission after hospitalization. Some reviewers describe price increases under new ownership and concerns about changing policies or responsiveness.
Patterns and overall impression: The reviews form two clear clusters. A large portion of reviewers provide strongly positive experiences emphasizing staff compassion, active programming, cleanliness of common areas, useful amenities, and reasonable cost/value. These reviewers recommend the community and emphasize residents’ happiness and engagement. However, a smaller but impactful cluster reports severe and specific operational failures—most notably pest infestations and episodes of neglect or inadequate clinical care—which create serious safety, health, and trust issues. Because these negative incidents are repeated across multiple summaries and include regulatory complaints, hospitalization, and property loss, they should weigh heavily in any assessment despite being fewer in number than the positive reviews.
In sum, Commonwealth Senior Living at Oak Ridge appears to deliver a generally positive day-to-day living experience for many residents — well-staffed, active, and amenity-rich — but it is also marked by some critical failures in management response, infection/pest control, and intermittent lapses in clinical care. Prospective residents and families should weigh the commonly praised strengths (staff, activities, amenities, and community environment) against the serious operational concerns raised, request up-to-date documentation of pest-control measures and quality/safety records, ask about staffing levels and staff turnover, and review how the facility handles maintenance complaints, incident reporting, and compensation for resident losses.
