Overall impression Reviews for Precisive Care I and II are predominantly positive, with many family members and residents praising the facility's cleanliness, atmosphere, amenities, and the compassionate, personalized care provided. Multiple reviewers explicitly recommend the facility and describe it as a true “home away from home,” emphasizing an involved ownership/administration and staff who often go above and beyond. At the same time, a consistent cluster of operational concerns appears in several reviews—mainly around staffing levels, communication during shift changes, and a small but noteworthy set of reports about unprofessional behavior. The result is a generally strong reputation tempered by recurring operational red flags that prospective residents and families should probe further.
Care quality A major theme is individualized, responsive care: reviewers describe 24/7 caregiver assistance, customized care plans, and staff who are attentive to patient needs. Families report positive outcomes for loved ones (including mentions of specific clinicians such as “Dr. Jasmine and her team” in one review), and many comments call out the staff's compassion and the feeling that loved ones are treated like family. However, several reviews raise significant care-quality concerns tied to staffing: aides are described as overworked and underpaid, shortages are reported, and there are complaints that bedridden residents were not checked on adequately. These concerns also include calls for more skilled aides and specific examples of neglect or insufficient oversight, suggesting variability in care consistency depending on time of day or staffing levels.
Staff and management Many reviewers praise the administration and ownership for being responsive and hands-on. Positive comments stress owner interaction, involved management, and staff that are well-trained, professional, and spiritually oriented (references to a “Godly love” atmosphere appear in reviews). Conversely, some reviews describe unprofessional behavior from certain staff members: talking about patients behind their backs, disrespectful attitudes, and reports of mistreatment of new employees. This split suggests that while leadership and parts of the caregiving team are highly regarded, there are pockets of poor culture or inconsistent conduct among some staff. The presence of engaged ownership is a strength that reviewers believe helps maintain high standards, but the negative reports imply the need for continued attention to staff training, retention, and culture.
Facilities, dining, and activities Facility-related feedback is overwhelmingly positive. Multiple reviews highlight exceptional cleanliness, attractive and home-like décor, and comfortable, furnished rooms—many noting that hospital beds and necessary accommodations are provided. The campus and grounds receive strong praise for being impeccable, with a fantastic location, light and bright spaces, and a lengthy walking path. Dining facilities are described as lovely with a fully operating kitchen, and common areas include large vanity rooms, multipurpose/activity spaces, a huge flex/exercise room, and an exquisite covered patio with views. Activity programming is often complimented: residents participate in arts and crafts, display artwork, and enjoy holiday parties with live music. These amenities contribute to a social, engaged environment that many reviewers characterize as ideal for seniors.
Policies and financial concerns While many reviewers report reasonable rates, a specific financial/policy issue appears repeatedly: complaints about a nonrefundable enrollment fee and allegations that charges were applied after a resident’s death. These are concrete, actionable concerns that several families cited negatively. Given the emotional and financial stakes of senior placement, reviewers recommend that prospective families request clear written explanations of all fees, refund policies, and end-of-life billing practices before enrolling.
Notable patterns and recommendations Two patterns stand out. First, there is a majority of strong, enthusiastic endorsements focusing on cleanliness, amenities, and compassionate care—many reviewers use superlatives and recommend the facility without reservation. Second, the recurring operational concerns—short-staffing, inconsistent staff professionalism, communication gaps at shift changes, and specific monitoring lapses—appear in enough reviews to warrant careful consideration. In practice this means that while the facility offers many high-quality elements (environment, activities, management involvement), the day-to-day resident experience can vary depending on staffing and team dynamics.
Conclusion Precisive Care I and II appear to be well-appointed, clean, and activity-rich assisted living environments with many families reporting excellent, compassionate care and engaged management. The most significant concerns relate to staffing levels, occasional lapses in monitoring (especially for bedridden residents), communication during shift changes, and some instances of unprofessional staff behavior. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong positive aspects (facilities, owner involvement, 24/7 care, activities) against these operational flags. Practical next steps before deciding would include touring during peak times and mealtimes, asking for details about staffing ratios and clinical skills, requesting written fee and refund policies (including policies about charges at death), and speaking with current resident families to confirm consistency of care across shifts.
