Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed and strongly polarized: a number of family members and long‑term residents express high satisfaction, while other reviewers report serious concerns. Positive reports emphasize clean and pleasant rooms, caring front‑line staff, a safe and loving atmosphere, and specific praise for management and named employees (manager Laurie and staff member Teresa). Several reviewers describe their relatives as happy and secure, including at least one mention that the facility works well for a blind resident. Multiple accounts note long‑term residency with residents intending to remain, and some families explicitly recommend the facility. The facility appears to be in steady demand for some time periods, as indicated by comments about limited rooms and a waiting list.
Care quality and staff behavior are central themes and the source of the greatest divergence. On the positive side, many reviews describe kind, attentive caregivers and a supportive manager (Laurie) who helps families feel reassured. Some reviewers note that nursing staff are present daily. Conversely, other reviews allege rude or uncaring employees, poor customer service, and examples of dishonesty. These conflicting reports suggest variability in staff performance or potentially uneven experiences between different units or shifts. Because both strong praise and sharp criticism appear repeatedly, prospective families should expect that individual experiences can differ substantially and should ask targeted questions during visits.
Facility upkeep and services also show a split in experiences. Several reviewers report that rooms are clean and well maintained, but an equal number raise issues with housekeeping and maintenance being inadequate. The presence of a waiting list and reports of full occupancy are pragmatic indicators that the facility is chosen by some families, but they also mean limited availability for new residents. A consistent negative across multiple summaries is the lack of activities: reviewers explicitly state there is insufficient or no programming for residents, which can negatively affect quality of life, especially for those who are mobile and socially engaged.
Dining is a clear pain point in the negative reviews: multiple summaries state the food is “very poor.” Food quality is a frequent and specific complaint and appears to be one of the more commonly mentioned shortcomings. Combined with reports of limited activities and inconsistent housekeeping, dining concerns contribute to an overall impression by some reviewers that daily living services fall short of expectations.
More serious safety and compliance issues are reported by a subset of reviewers. Allegations include theft, lies, disturbing facts, and claims of misconduct; reviewers mention a regulatory complaint and a state board report. These are serious claims that deserve further investigation. Because the reviews only report that these issues were alleged (they do not provide outcomes or substantiated findings), prospective residents and their families should verify the current status by requesting the facility’s response, checking state inspection and complaint records, and asking for clarification about any resolved or ongoing investigations.
In summary, Hickory Square Retirement Center elicits strongly mixed reactions. Strengths in several reviews include clean and comfortable rooms, caring frontline staff, supportive named managers, and residents who feel safe and intend to stay long‑term. Weaknesses across other reviews include poor food, lack of activities, inconsistent housekeeping and maintenance, and serious allegations regarding safety, theft, and regulatory complaints. The pattern suggests that experiences vary significantly between residents and families. Recommended next steps for someone considering this facility: visit in person (including mealtimes and activity periods), speak directly with current residents and their families, meet the manager (Laurie was frequently praised) and ask about staff training, turnover, housekeeping schedules, maintenance plans, activity programming, and any regulatory complaints or investigations and their resolutions. Also request recent state inspection results and clarify availability given the reported waiting list.
