Overall impression: The reviews present a highly polarized but recurring pattern: many families and employees describe Double Creek Assisted Living and Memory Care as a warm, well-appointed, community-oriented facility with compassionate caregivers and attractive amenities, while a substantial and consistent minority report serious lapses in care, management instability, and safety issues. Positive narratives emphasize caring staff, a strong sense of community, robust programming, and a clean, hotel-like environment. Negative narratives point repeatedly to systemic understaffing, high turnover (including frequent executive director changes), hygiene and medication problems, and concerns specific to the memory care unit.
Staff and caregiving quality: One of the clearest themes is how divergent residents' day-to-day experiences can be depending on staffing and leadership at the time. Numerous reviews praise caregivers as attentive, compassionate, and willing to go above and beyond — staff members (several named repeatedly) receive strong, personal commendations for building deep connections with residents, supporting families, and providing individualized care. At the same time, a comparable set of reviews documents chronic understaffing, frequent arrival of new or inexperienced caregivers, and caregivers stretched too thin. These negative accounts include missed baths, residents left in urine, wet/soiled clothes not changed promptly, missed meals unless reminders are provided, bedsores and hygiene neglect, and inconsistent caregiver interactions. Medication handling is another split area: some reviews commend reliable medication administration, while many others report medication errors, late medications, incorrect charting, and pulling meds from the wrong day.
Memory care and safety: Memory care emerges as a particular area of concern. Multiple reviews call out understaffing and unreliable care in memory care, with reports of residents being misplaced or lost, misplacement between units, and a sense of the memory care unit feeling unsafe or under-resourced (one reviewer said the second-floor memory care 'felt unsafe' and evacuation procedures were unclear). Families frequently urge stronger oversight of memory care staffing, and several reviewers explicitly recommended assisted living rather than memory care for their relatives. Safety incidents such as falls left unnoticed and resident disorientation are repeatedly cited and are among the most serious, recurring criticisms.
Facilities, amenities, and activities: The physical plant and amenities receive predominantly positive feedback. Many reviews describe the building as new, bright, spacious, and hotel-like, with features such as a movie theater, gym, art room, courtyard, and comfortable dining spaces. The dining program is frequently praised for variety and quality, with multiple reviewers calling meals 'delicious' and 'restaurant-style'; however, a minority noted cold meals or limited dining options at times. Activities and social programming (quilting, brain games, outings, family nights, holiday celebrations) are consistently highlighted as strengths that foster community and resident engagement. Housekeeping and room condition, however, are inconsistent: while common areas are often clean, apartment-level housekeeping is sometimes described as infrequent or inadequate (weekly versus daily cleaning complaints, laundry not done, rooms messy or smelly in some cases).
Management, communication, and operations: Reviews show a bifurcated view of leadership. Several reviewers credit specific administrators and directors with turning situations around, being compassionate, transparent, and responsive; named staff such as Nikki, Shilpa, Diane, Angie, and others receive repeated praise. Conversely, many accounts criticize corporate or local management for high executive turnover, reactive or money-focused decision-making, billing and refund problems, poor follow-through on promised services, and occasional cold or unhelpful communication. Families report needing to advocate strongly to get issues addressed; those who do often see improvements, but the need for advocacy is a recurring theme. Additional operational issues cited include call-light response delays, confidentiality breaches and gossip among staff, and billing/dispute frustrations (including non-refundable deposits and refund delays).
Patterns and variability: A critical pattern is variability — experiences appear highly dependent on timing, shift, floor, and which specific staff or managers are in place. Many reviews indicate that the facility can offer excellent care and a very positive resident experience when staffing and leadership are stable, but that these conditions are not consistent. Memory care tends to be singled out as less reliable than assisted living, and several reviewers urge prospective families to tour memory care separately and to ask specific questions about staffing levels, shift coverage, and emergency procedures. Multiple reviews note that the facility's appearance and marketing can be strong, yet underlying staffing and care processes may lag.
Notable positive specifics: Frequent mentions of a warm, welcoming culture, individualized attention from caregivers, strong social programming, and top-notch dining recur across positive reviews. Several reviewers describe the facility as transformative for their loved ones — restoring independence, building friendships, and providing peace of mind — and they recommend Double Creek enthusiastically. Positive mentions of hospice coordination and compassionate end-of-life care are also present.
Notable negative specifics: Recurring serious concerns include hygiene neglect (residents left in urine, missed showers, soiled linens), medication mistakes, understaffed memory care, and safety incidents (falls, residents left unattended, or missing). Reports of staff mistreatment (bullying, verbal abuse, racism toward housekeepers, confidentiality breaches) and management indifference or prioritization of move-ins/finances over resident welfare are also repeated enough to be considered systemic red flags.
Implications for prospective residents and families: The reviews suggest that Double Creek can provide a high-quality, engaging environment with compassionate caregivers and excellent amenities, but that outcomes vary substantially depending on staffing stability and management. Prospective families should verify current staffing ratios, turnover rates (particularly for leadership and memory care staff), housekeeping frequency, medication administration protocols, incident reporting, and billing/refund policies. It is advisable to tour both assisted living and memory care areas, ask for references from current families, and confirm how the community handles care issues, emergency response, and family communication. Families who are able and willing to advocate and maintain active communication with staff often report better outcomes.
Overall assessment: The most frequent strengths are the facility's physical environment, activities, and many deeply committed staff members who deliver compassionate, personalized care. The most frequent and severe weaknesses are chronic understaffing, management instability, inconsistent hygiene and medication practices, and memory care safety concerns. The reviews together paint a picture of a facility with substantial assets and dedicated employees, but also with systemic operational problems that can lead to inconsistent or unsafe care for vulnerable residents. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility's amenities and praised staff against the documented risks, and should perform thorough, targeted due diligence before decision-making.
