Overall impression: The reviews present a mixed to polarized picture of Better Living Management facilities, with some reviewers describing warm, meaningful experiences and compassionate caregivers, and others reporting serious operational, clinical, and management shortcomings. Positive comments emphasize heartfelt moments—holiday visits, residents smiling and enjoying company—and highlight staff members who go above and beyond, making some reviewers call the place a 'forever home' or 'fantastic.' At the same time, multiple reviewers point to systemic problems including staffing, cleanliness, and administrative failures that raise significant concerns about consistent quality of care.
Care quality and resident experience: Several reviewers reported inadequate or neglected care, including incidents of residents being left sitting for days, unexplained bruising, and alleged theft. Medication issues are a recurring concern: some reviews mention delayed medications and specific medication-management problems for conditions such as COPD. Conversely, other reviewers explicitly praised the caregiving staff for attentive hands-on care and ensuring residents’ happiness. This contrast suggests inconsistent clinical performance across shifts, units, or individual staff members rather than uniformly good or poor medical care.
Staff and management: Staff descriptions are sharply divided. Many reviewers praise friendly, compassionate direct-care staff who form strong relationships with residents and families. However, multiple reviews also describe undertrained personnel, rude or uncaring managers, and poor cooperation and communication with families. Management-related complaints include abrupt discharges with very short notice (two days in one account), paperwork snafus, and a perception that leadership is money-focused and unresponsive to resident or family concerns. These management problems appear to drive much of the dissatisfaction even where frontline staff are well regarded.
Facilities, environment, and access: Reports paint the physical environment as inconsistent. Some reviewers note large rooms and a quiet rural setting, while others describe the facility as ran-down, with pest issues (bugs), small bedrooms, and lacking basic amenities like internet or TV. The rural location is valued for its quiet, but reviewers also flag its distance from acute care (about 30–40 minutes to a hospital), which may be a practical concern for residents with complex medical needs.
Activities, therapies, and dining: Activity programming and therapeutic services are another area of divergence. A few reviewers recall positive, memorable social events—Christmas carols, Halloween visits, and small thoughtful touches like diabetic candy—whereas others state there are no activities or therapies. Dining complaints center on food quality and issues with cooks; at least one reviewer raised concerns about meal service. These mixed reports indicate inconsistent programming and variability in the level of engagement residents receive.
Costs and value: Several reviews state the facility is more affordable than higher-priced alternatives, making it appealing to families seeking lower cost options. At the same time, at least one reviewer felt private-pay costs were high relative to the level of service provided. This suggests variable perceptions of value tied to differing expectations and experiences of care quality and facility condition.
Patterns and overall assessment: The dominant pattern is inconsistency. Positive experiences tend to highlight individual staff members who provide exceptional care and meaningful social engagement. Negative experiences cluster around management failures (communication, abrupt discharges, paperwork), clinical safety concerns (medication delays, neglect, bruising), and facility upkeep (cleanliness, pests, lack of amenities). Because reviews range from “fantastic” to “one-star” impressions, prospective residents and families should anticipate variability and do thorough due diligence.
Recommendations for prospective residents/families: Visit multiple times at different times of day to observe staffing and resident interactions; ask specifically about medication management protocols, staffing ratios, and training; request records or examples of activity and therapy schedules; inspect rooms and common areas for cleanliness and pest control; verify contract terms about discharge notice and financial policies; and speak with current residents’ families about responsiveness of management. If complex medical needs exist (e.g., COPD), confirm the facility’s ability to manage respiratory medications and emergency transfers given the stated 30–40 minute distance to the hospital.
Conclusion: Reviews reflect both genuine, heartwarming moments facilitated by caring staff and serious operational and clinical concerns that have negatively impacted other residents and families. The facility may offer good value and a warm environment under certain conditions or with particular staff, but recurring reports about management, medication handling, and facility maintenance warrant careful inquiry before committing to care there.
