Overall sentiment: Reviews of A Touch of Home are strongly mixed but lean positive among the majority of reviewers. Many families emphasize a small, home-like setting with warm, family-oriented staff and hands-on owner/management involvement that creates a calm and safe environment. Numerous comments highlight long-term resident stability, hospice-friendliness, and the sense that residents are treated with dignity and given purposeful roles. These positive reviews repeatedly cite attentive communication from management (several reviewers specifically name Theresa and Renee), individualized care, and a welcoming atmosphere that provides peace of mind for families.
Care quality and staff: A dominant theme among positive reviews is the compassionate, attentive, and professional nature of the caregiving staff. Reviewers describe staff who go above and beyond, treat residents as part of a team, create special jobs for residents, and help them thrive socially and physically. Several reviews mention licensed nurses and doctors being available 24/7 and that the facility provides high-quality medical oversight. Families frequently report excellent communication from management and caregivers, fast responsiveness to needs, and strong end-of-life/hospice support. However, counterbalancing these positives are multiple reports of understaffing, high turnover, unprofessional behavior, and at least one family who moved their loved one out due to poor care. These negative staffing reports are serious because they directly contradict the many accounts of attentive care and suggest that resident experience may vary considerably depending on timing, staff on duty, or specific units/rooms.
Facilities and grounds: Many reviewers praise the facility’s setting—described as beautiful, natural, forest-like with inviting walking paths and a well-maintained backyard/deck that residents enjoy. Some call the property immaculately maintained and note that it does not feel institutional. Other reviewers, however, describe maintenance and cleanliness problems: an unsafe deck/uneven wood, dirt walking trails, outdated photos in marketing materials, and areas of the house that appear neglected or in poor repair. There are also starkly negative sanitation claims from a subset of reviewers reporting pests (rats, roaches, spiders, snakes) and even maggots, along with dirty laundry and outdoor pantry issues; these are red flags that warrant independent verification during a tour. The facility’s small-house model is a pro for many families seeking personalized care, but it also means limited space—some reviewers mentioned tiny rooms, shared bedrooms, and a cramped dining area.
Dining and activities: Activity programming is consistently praised by many families: a vibrant social calendar with group exercise, games, crafts, movie days, and outdoor lunches, and residents often lead or participate actively. The small scale appears to facilitate meaningful engagement and social connections. Opinions on dining are mixed: several reviewers describe organized, healthy, appetizing meals, while others criticize the food as being high in salt, sugar, and processed items. A recurring practical complaint is that the dining area can be too small for comfort.
Management, reputation, and patterns of concern: Owner and management involvement is frequently listed as a strength—owners are available, responsive, and actively engaged in resident life. That engagement contributes to many families feeling reassured about safety and care. Conversely, there are troubling allegations from a few reviewers including claims that the owner paid staff to write positive reviews and reports of inconsistent care or neglect. The presence of both highly positive and seriously negative reports suggests variability in resident experiences. Prospective families should treat that variability as a signal to do careful, direct verification: tour multiple times, ask for references from current families, observe mealtimes and activities, inspect rooms and outdoor spaces, and ask specific questions about pest control, staffing ratios, turnover, and how management responds to documented problems.
Who might be the best fit: A Touch of Home appears to be a strong fit for families seeking a small, home-like assisted living with hands-on staff, active social programming, personalized attention, and hospice-friendly care. It particularly suits those who prioritize a natural setting, meaningful resident roles, and close communication with management. Potential concerns that could make it a poor fit include residents who require high levels of medical attention during periods of reported understaffing, families worried about sanitation or maintenance inconsistencies, or those needing larger private rooms or more modern facilities.
Bottom line and recommendations: The reviews indicate many very positive experiences but also several serious negative claims. The weight of commentary around attentive staff, owner responsiveness, activities, and long-term resident satisfaction is strong, yet the specific sanitation and staffing complaints are significant and should not be ignored. Prospective residents and families should conduct in-person visits at different times, request to see current resident rooms and dining, ask for documentation on pest control and staffing ratios, verify references from recent families, and inquire about any recent complaints and how they were handled. That due diligence will help determine whether an individual will experience the highly praised, family-like environment or encounter one of the less favorable conditions reported by some reviewers.
