Overall sentiment across reviews is predominantly positive about the quality of care, compassion of staff, and the homelike, community atmosphere at both The Haven and The Laurels in Stone Oak. Many reviewers emphasize that caregivers, nurses, and administrators are caring, responsive, and proactive — often learning residents’ names, communicating well with family members, and providing individualized attention. Nursing coverage and medication oversight are highlighted repeatedly (including RN oversight and reports of 24/7 licensed nurses), which contributes to a pervasive sense of safety and trust for families. Several reviewers explicitly praised successful transitions into the community, including support around difficult end-of-life transitions and hospice coordination (though there are exceptions noted below). Cleanliness, good housekeeping, and well-kept landscaping/patios are frequent positives that reinforce the welcoming impression for many families.
Memory care receives consistent praise: reviewers note a secure memory-care environment, thoughtfully themed areas, niches for wandering (nursery, pet store concepts), and programming tailored for people with dementia. Many family members felt the memory-care programming was worth extra cost where applicable. The communities also get credit for programmatic variety — exercise, crafts, outings, weekly animal visits, and frequent social offerings — and for having engaging activities directors in many instances. Dining is often described in positive terms where menus are balanced and restaurant-style dining is offered; several reviewers said loved ones enjoy the meals and praise the food when it is well prepared.
Despite these strengths, several recurring operational and experiential concerns appear across the reviews. Food quality and variety is one of the most frequently mentioned negatives — multiple reviewers said meals can be repetitive, under-proportioned, greasy or salty, and in need of more protein and presentation improvements. Relatedly, some communities charge extra for certain services (delivery charges, pet rent, and added memory-care fees), and there are reports of price increases that affect perceived value. Physical space and amenity issues are also common: some rooms are oddly configured or not roomy, a number of suites lack in-room showers or fridges, and some public areas and furniture are described as dated or dimly lit. Outdoor space is mixed in reviewer perception — while many praise patios and gardens, others note small or locked outdoor areas and a lack of true walking paths.
Activity programming is generally strong, but reviewers note unevenness: many daytime offerings and a robust calendar exist, yet evenings can be quiet with fewer structured options. Activity director turnover or inexperience was mentioned in multiple reviews and contributes to uneven activity quality. Communication quality is also variable: while many families praised strong, proactive communication and responsiveness (including calls when issues arise), other accounts describe poor tour communication, slow family updates, or shift-to-shift miscommunication. There are also logistical and marketing pain points — broken website links, tours where apartments were not shown, late tour starts, or virtual-only glimpses during pandemic restrictions.
Several serious concerns were brought up in a minority of reports and deserve special attention. A few reviewers recounted alarming incidents: an unplugged phone preventing calls, missed or withheld meals resulting in a resident being unfed, and one account describing unacceptable cruelty. These appear to be isolated but severe enough that prospective families should ask administrators about recent incident histories, staff ratios, and corrective action processes. Additionally, some families noted management challenges related to staff turnover and leadership responsiveness; these organizational issues can manifest as inconsistent resident experiences depending on unit, shift, or which staff remain in place.
Value and fit are recurring themes: many reviewers feel the community represents good value — citing caring staff, cleanliness, and clinical oversight — while others find costs high, especially once add-ons are included. Suitability also depends on the resident’s needs and preferences: several reviewers felt the community might be too large or overwhelming for certain residents, and some questioned whether themed memory-care areas would meet the needs of lower-functioning residents. Practical constraints such as waitlists, respite pricing minimums, location relative to family, and differences between specific wings or back units factor into decision-making.
Recommendations for prospective families based on these reviews: prioritize an in-person, full tour that includes the specific unit and meal service; ask for recent incident logs and turnover statistics; verify in-room amenities (shower, fridge, microwave) and safety features; request sample menus and a meal, particularly at lunch; inquire about activity schedules for evenings and weekends; clarify all extra fees (pet rent, meal delivery, memory-care surcharge, respite minima); and check outdoor access policies. Overall, both communities are repeatedly commended for compassionate caregivers, clean environments, and strong clinical oversight, but prospective residents and families should do targeted due diligence around food, activities, unit condition, management stability, and any prior serious incidents to ensure the best fit.
