Overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: many reviewers praise Serenity Assisted Care Living for its clean, pleasant physical environment and for caring, family-like staff, while a substantial number of reviewers report serious management, safety, privacy, and care-quality concerns. The facility receives frequent commendations for its spotless rooms, lack of odor, attractive/beautiful facility, and small touches that make residents feel celebrated and at home. Several reviews single out specific staff and leadership (notably Mrs. Vertil) as devoted, patient, and mission-driven, and multiple families emphasize that staff went above and beyond, administered medications on time, and responded quickly to questions and needs.
At the same time, recurring themes among negative reviews raise red flags that prospective families should note. A significant pattern is inconsistency: some reviewers describe an ideal, caring home, while others report neglectful or harmful behavior. Complaints include frequent staff turnover and unprofessional conduct (including outbursts by an RN and other staff), which appears to contribute to variability in the resident experience. More serious allegations include physical assault by staff, theft of resident property, and improper handling of legal/financial matters—examples cited include privacy invasions around financial information, monitoring of calls/visitors/mail, blocking visits, improper POA handling, and a guardianship petition. These allegations suggest potential problems with privacy, family access, crisis management, and legal documentation.
Dining and activities show mixed feedback. Several reviewers praise the food and report meals are good, while others specifically criticize cheap meals lacking fresh fruit or vegetables. Activity programming also varies by reviewer: some describe engaging activities and organized Bingo, while others say Bingo is the only activity offered and criticize lack of prizes or variety. Importantly, multiple reviews state memory care is not offered or that the facility is not suitable for residents with dementia or Alzheimer’s—this is a consistent practical limitation rather than a quality judgment.
Management and administrative themes are similarly split. Positive comments highlight helpful, thorough directors and mission adherence, while negative reports accuse owners/administrators of being money-focused, cutting corners, and antagonistic toward families. Several families described adversarial interactions with staff and administration, including blocked visits and interference in family decisions. There are also concrete service problems reported, such as missed medical appointments and a specific incident where a diabetic resident was allegedly given sugar.
Taken together, the reviews portray a facility with strong positives—clean environment, devoted caregivers in many cases, attentive staff who can make residents feel at home—but also with nontrivial and repeated negative reports that affect resident safety, privacy, and legal/financial handling. The most notable risk signals are: (1) inconsistency of care and experience likely tied to staff turnover; (2) serious allegations regarding assault, theft, privacy breaches and POA/guardianship mishandling; and (3) polarized reports about meals and activities.
For families considering Serenity Assisted Care Living, the pattern in these reviews suggests careful, specific due diligence is warranted. Relevant steps would include asking for current staffing/turnover data, observing multiple meal periods and activities, verifying how medication, dietary needs (e.g., diabetic care), privacy and POA documentation are handled, checking procedures for visits and family access, requesting references from current families, and clarifying whether memory care services are provided. The mixed feedback means visits and direct, detailed questions will be important to determine whether the positive experiences others report are likely to match a prospective resident’s needs and expectations.
