Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many families report deeply positive, even exceptional, care experiences centered on compassionate caregivers and a close-knit small-community feel, while an almost equal number report significant systemic problems tied to management, staffing, cleanliness, and safety. The facility appears capable of delivering very good individualized care when experienced caregivers and stable leadership are present, but recurring reports of turnover, ownership/management changes, and understaffing frequently lead to lapses in care and service that materially affect resident wellbeing.
Care quality and staffing: Multiple reviews praise direct-care staff as caring, compassionate, and willing to go above and beyond, and several specific employees (Sandra, Arie, Kirby, Kat, Tony, Stephanie, and the Nursing Director in some accounts) are singled out for exemplary service. These positive accounts often describe helpful communication, quick resolution of small issues, good medication management, and activities that engage residents. At the same time, a dominant negative theme is high staff turnover and reliance on agency staff, leading to inconsistent caregivers, information gaps between shifts, and nights/evenings perceived as weaker. Understaffing is repeatedly linked to missed basic care tasks (bathing, changing, medicine distribution), increased falls, and residents being left unsupervised. There are also multiple alarming accounts of unprofessional or abusive behavior by individual nurses or staff (vulgar language, rude bedside manner, alleged theft of belongings), which were reportedly not always resolved effectively by management.
Management, ownership, and administration: Reviews describe a pattern where ownership or leadership change has coincided with deterioration in service for many families. Complaints include unprofessional management, broken promises, billing disputes, unfulfilled refunds, and a perception that financial concerns override resident care. Some reviewers say management is unresponsive or dismissive when complaints are raised, and others report records or discharge processes being handled poorly. Conversely, a subset of reviews praise new leaders who have prioritized resident care and made visible improvements—indicating that management changes can cut both ways. This split creates unpredictability: prospective families may find either a well-run home or face administrative hurdles depending on the current leadership and staff stability.
Facilities, maintenance, and cleanliness: The physical facility receives mixed feedback. Many reviewers call the building beautiful, with attractive dining spaces, pleasant outdoor areas, and some newly remodeled sections. Yet persistent and repeated complaints warn of cleanliness and maintenance failures: hallways smelling of urine, dirty public toilets, mold in bathroom ceilings, broken toilets, frayed carpets, dead landscaping, and recurring plumbing and lighting issues. Housekeeping inconsistency is a frequent complaint (rooms not cleaned weekly, housekeeping staff distracted or ephemeral), and laundry service failures appear common. These contrasts suggest that visible, higher-traffic public areas may be maintained better at times, while ongoing deep-cleaning, laundry, and timely maintenance tasks are unreliable and vary by shift or period.
Dining and activities: Opinions on food and activities are highly variable. Some residents and families praise the dining room, enjoy meals, and describe robust social dining experiences and activities (puzzles, bingo, scenic/weekly outings). Others describe poor, repetitive, or minimally nutritious meals; missing variety; and housekeeping or dining staff shortages that hurt the dining experience. Memory care, in particular, is repeatedly described as lacking organized activities and in need of updates; in some accounts, RA staff perform activities out of necessity and memory care leadership is reported feeding rather than programming. Transportation services have been reported out of service at times, reducing off-site activity options.
Safety and clinical concerns: Several reviews raise serious clinical and safety issues: medication runs out without prompt follow-up, improper or missing lift equipment and training leading to lifting injuries, frequent resident falls, and instances where more impaired nursing-home-level residents appear to be colocated in assisted-living settings. These reports, combined with allegations of neglect or poor monitoring on shifts, are notable and should be treated as high-priority red flags for families with medically complex or mobility-impaired relatives.
Patterns and takeaways: The overall picture is one of a facility that can deliver excellent, compassionate care in certain staffing and leadership conditions but is vulnerable to rapid decline when turnover, ownership changes, or administrative problems occur. Positive reviews emphasize individual staff members and tight-knit community aspects; negative reviews highlight systemic issues that compromise safety, cleanliness, and consistency. The most consistent concerns are turnover/understaffing, housekeeping/cleanliness lapses (including odors and mold), management responsiveness and billing issues, medication and safety lapses, and uneven dining and memory-care programming.
For families considering Pegasus Landing of Forney, the reviews suggest several practical steps: visit multiple times across different shifts to assess staffing consistency and cleanliness; ask specifically about staff turnover rates, use of agency staff, and staff-to-resident ratios; verify policies and documentation for medication management, laundry, housekeeping, and transportation; inquire about recent ownership or leadership changes and request references; and verify billing/refund procedures in writing. Given the polarized experiences reported, prospective residents and families will likely benefit from direct verification of current management practices and first-hand observation of care during unannounced visits before making a placement decision.
