Overall sentiment across these reviews is mixed but leans positive about frontline caregiving and the home-like environment, with significant concerns focused on management consistency, staffing/training, safety during emergencies, and facility maintenance.
Care quality: Many reviewers emphasize warm, attentive, and compassionate care from direct caregivers. Multiple families singled out specific caregivers by name (Celin/Celine and Dennis) as exceptional, and reviewers frequently described improvements in residents' conditions (improved pressure sores, better eating consistency, good PEG tube and catheter care). Several accounts state that care at this home felt superior to nursing facilities, that hospice staff directed families here, and that RN and PA visits occur, which supports a baseline medical oversight. The small-community model is repeatedly praised for enabling personalized attention — families report that because there are relatively few residents, staff can spend more time with each person.
Staffing and training: Despite strong praise for individual caregivers, reviews reveal a pattern of concern about staffing levels and clinical training. Some reviewers report an extremely problematic staffing ratio (one staff for eight residents) and express worries that many caregivers lack CNA certification or sufficient medical training. While PCAs are described as loving and capable, several families call for more experienced staff and better clinical oversight. This creates a dual picture: highly dedicated caregivers who provide compassionate daily care, but a need for stronger clinical staffing and formal training to reliably manage medically complex or immobile residents.
Management, communication, and policies: Reports on management responsiveness are mixed. Multiple reviewers say management is responsive, keeping families informed, accommodating schedules (even holidays), and maintaining proactive communications via phone or WhatsApp. Conversely, other reviews criticize the director as unresponsive and cite poor communication—especially during the COVID period—where families described strict lockdowns, being barred from visiting for months, and only receiving updates from a single caregiver. This inconsistency suggests variable experiences depending on timing, specific staff on duty, or family expectations. Billing and pricing are generally seen as reasonable and stable (rate not increasing once set), but isolated complaints about price discrepancies were reported.
Facilities, cleanliness, and amenities: Many reviewers praise the physical environment: professionally decorated, above-average furnishings, spacious rooms, and attractive kitchen and dining areas contributing to a warm, homey atmosphere. Activities such as board games and use of a community room are noted as positive engagement points. However, there are serious, conflicting accounts about facility condition and cleanliness. While some call the home clean and well-maintained, others report mold in bathrooms, filth, and an urgent need for repairs. These opposing reports indicate variability in maintenance and cleanliness standards over time or between areas of the facility.
Safety and emergency response: A major negative theme is the flood incident described in multiple reviews. Reviewers report a flood related to a Barker Reservoir release, necessitating evacuation by boat, involvement of the Fire Marshal, and an owner and a small team of caregivers and volunteers assisting during evacuation. Some families praised the hands-on presence of staff and owner during the emergency, while others raised alarms about hazardous transport of immobile residents, lack of regulatory notification, and inadequate oversight. There is also at least one reviewer who disputes certain negative claims and calls a particular critical review a scam, indicating contested narratives around the incident. Regardless, the flood episode highlights concerns about emergency preparedness, evacuation logistics, and post-flood repair/maintenance needs.
Overall patterns and recommendation: The dominant positive pattern is strong, individualized day-to-day caregiving from a small, dedicated staff who create a warm, home-like environment; many families highly recommend the home and report long-term satisfaction. The dominant negatives are uneven management communication, variable cleanliness/maintenance, insufficient clinical staffing or training for higher-need residents, and significant concerns about safety and emergency response stemming from the flooding event. Prospective families should weigh the clear strengths in personalized, compassionate caregiving and the attractive home environment against the risks signaled by staffing/training gaps and the facility's response to severe weather/flooding. Visiting in person (when possible), asking specific questions about staffing ratios, CNA/RN coverage, emergency plans, training, and recent maintenance/cleaning records is advisable to confirm current conditions and suitability for medically complex residents.
