The reviews for Focused Care at Hogan Park present a highly polarized and complex picture. A substantial portion of reviewers describe the facility positively: they praise engaging activities, the therapy department, a pleasant courtyard, and a warm, home-like atmosphere. Several reviewers emphasize friendly, dedicated, and professional staff, good nursing/therapy care, helpful customer service, and a well-maintained facility under new management and upgrades. These accounts describe residents who enjoy one another's company, staff who are kind and smiling, and an environment described as peaceful, caring, and blessed.
Contrasting sharply with those positive reports are numerous severe complaints that raise significant concerns about safety, hygiene, and basic care. Multiple reviewers describe poor care quality, unresponsiveness from staff, and unsanitary conditions — specifically dirty bed sheets and soiled diapers left unchanged. Several accounts note delayed personal hygiene for residents (few showers, delayed baths), residents wearing other people’s clothing, and staff who do not know residents’ names, which indicate lapses in routine personal care and resident identification practices.
More alarming are repeated allegations of neglect, abuse, cruelty, and even staff theft. Reviewers explicitly allege mistreatment and discriminatory behavior against disabled residents and recount unsettling incidents (including an instance of a resident urinating into a trash can). There are also reports of unprofessional conduct by a named employee (Carolyn) who allegedly took frustrations out on patients. These types of allegations appear alongside reports that some families felt pushed to relocate residents or were engaged in refund disputes with management, suggesting strained relations between families and the facility when incidents arise.
Infection-control and safety issues are also prominent in the negative reviews. Several reviewers describe apparent breaches of quarantine procedures and PPE use: quarantine signage on doors while staff nevertheless allowed entry, and staff observed working without face coverings or gloves. These reports raise concerns about the facility’s adherence to communicable-disease protocols. Compounding this are reports of renovation activity where asbestos was allegedly present in the air without warning to families or staff — a serious environmental health concern that reviewers characterized as a major communication and safety failure.
There is a clear pattern of inconsistent experiences depending on reviewer. Some emphasize caring, professional staff and a nurturing environment, while others document systemic failures in hygiene, safety, and communication. Communication deficits are a recurring theme: lack of clear updates to families, staff not knowing residents’ names, and disputes over refunds or relocations. Operationally, reviewers also mention understaffing or poorly trained staff as likely contributors to missed showers, delayed responses, and lapses in monitoring and supervision.
Overall sentiment is therefore mixed but leans toward caution. Positive elements — activities, therapy, outdoor space, and some committed staff — suggest the facility has strengths that can support residents’ quality of life. However, the number and severity of negative reports (unsanitary conditions, alleged abuse and neglect, PPE/quarantine failures, asbestos exposure, staff misconduct, and poor communication) are serious and recurring enough that prospective families should investigate carefully. Recommended next steps for an interested family would include on-site visits during different times of day, direct conversations with multiple staff members, review of infection-control and renovation safety documentation, checking state inspection records and complaint history, and speaking with current families about their recent experiences to assess whether the positive accounts are consistent and whether the serious issues have been addressed under the reported new management.
