Overall sentiment across the reviews for Rosemont Assisted Living And Memory Care is highly mixed and polarized. A large number of families and residents consistently praise the caregiving staff, memory care teams, and the life-enrichment/activities program, while an almost-equal portion describe serious, sometimes alarming problems related to staffing, cleanliness, management responsiveness, and safety. The facility repeatedly appears to deliver strong social programming and compassionate direct care in many cases, but there are recurring reports of systemic operational issues that significantly affect the resident experience for others.
Care quality and staff: The most frequent positive theme is the compassion and dedication of caregivers, nurses, and long-term staff who "know residents by name," provide individualized attention, and go above and beyond for families. Memory care is often singled out as a strength; reviewers report attentive behavior management, a secure, home-like memory care floor (Rose Garden), and staff who preserve resident dignity. That said, many reviews also report chronic understaffing, high turnover, and inconsistent training — new hires who appear inexperienced and aides who are slow to respond. These staffing problems are repeatedly linked to delayed assistance, missed medication administration, and in more serious reports, falls and neglect that required hospitalization and prompted a state investigation.
Activities and social environment: One of Rosemont's clearest strengths is its activities and life-enrichment program. Multiple reviewers name the activities director(s) — Melody/Mel and others — as standout employees who create meaningful, frequent programming such as Bingo, arts and crafts, music, Tai Chi, field trips, ice-cream truck events, and holiday parties. Residents and families often describe a lively social environment with high resident involvement, regular outings, and opportunities for creativity and engagement. These programs are credited with improving mood, social connection, and overall quality of life for many residents.
Dining and nutrition: Reports on food are mixed. Numerous reviewers praise specific meals and the dining experience — describing well-cooked, appetizing dishes and chef favorites (for example, beef tips au jus). At the same time, others criticize the menu as bland or overly fried, with an overabundance of starches, limited diabetic or sugar-free options, and no on-staff dietician. Several reviewers noted a decline in food quality after chef turnover. Meal-related complaints are a recurring theme and are frequently tied to inconsistent staffing in the kitchen and changing cuisine preferences.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Facility condition and cleanliness produce polar opposite accounts. Many families describe a clean, well-kept facility, spotless common areas, and pleasant grounds with a gazebo and outdoor patio. Conversely, a worrying subset of reviews reports serious hygiene problems: urine odors, sticky dining room furniture, blood-stained recliners, pee on dining room floors, stained carpets, laundry neglected for weeks, and rooms left in filthy condition. Maintenance delays are also noted — broken faucets, leaking after rain, broken AC units, and temporary window units propped with cardboard. The discrepancy suggests uneven practices or variability across units or time periods.
Management, communication, and business practices: Management experiences are highly mixed. Several reviewers applaud proactive, communicative executive directors and office staff who address family concerns, facilitate transitions, and maintain strong family ties. Others accuse administration and owners of being unresponsive, money-focused, making excuses, failing to honor promised services (e.g., free internet), and engaging in billing disputes (notably a 30-day notice/full month charge dispute). Specific managers and regional directors are named both positively (Amie, Cathy in some cases) and negatively (Cathy, Darren in others), indicating turnover or inconsistent leadership. Some families report being "ghosted" by directors or moved without notification, while others describe excellent advocacy from leadership.
Safety and clinical concerns: Some reviews raise serious safety and clinical red flags: medication errors or improper handling (ungloved hands, missed meds), inattentiveness leading to falls and injuries (hematoma), alleged overmedication, and emergency-response failures. There are at least a few accounts of state investigation-level concerns. Additionally, limited clinical coverage is mentioned — instances of no nurse on duty or lack of weekend management — which exacerbates worry when higher-acuity care is needed. These reports coexist with positive comments about hospice care, rehab successes, and cases where staff helped residents regain mobility, demonstrating inconsistent clinical performance.
Patterns and variability: A key pattern in the reviews is variability. Many positive comments emphasize long-tenured staff and a family-like community, while negative comments often trace back to periods of staff turnover or specific leadership changes. Several reviewers noted improvements under new directors or decline after staff/chef changes. This suggests that the resident experience at Rosemont may be highly dependent on staffing stability, management at a given time, and which units or shifts a resident interacts with.
Notable specific incidents and operational details: Reviewers cite concrete issues that prospective families should consider: at least one report of a resident's room reaching 81°F from unaddressed AC failure; allegations of blood-stained recliners and urine on the dining room floor; laundry left unaddressed for weeks; an extra $500 charge for showers/escort services in one account; broken promises about internet access; and a 30-day notice billing dispute. These specifics illustrate the operational gaps that underlie many negative reviews.
Conclusion: The overall picture is that Rosemont offers meaningful social programming, caring direct-care staff, and a homelike memory care environment for many residents. However, serious concerns about staffing levels, management consistency, cleanliness, maintenance, medication safety, and business practices appear repeatedly enough to warrant caution. Experiences vary widely — some families report Rosemont as a "godsend" with outstanding, compassionate care; others describe conditions they found unacceptable and potentially dangerous. Prospective residents and families should tour multiple times, ask for up-to-date staffing ratios and incident records, verify clinical coverage and recent inspection outcomes, inspect rooms and common areas for cleanliness and AC reliability, and get billing/contract terms in writing to understand fees and notice policies.
