Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans positive in many respects, with a substantial and recurring set of serious concerns that cannot be overlooked. A majority of reviewers praise the Reserve at First Colony for its warm, family‑oriented culture, friendly and compassionate staff, attractive campus, and comfortable assisted‑living apartments. Multiple families report long‑term staff, low turnover, and strong staff‑resident relationships that provide peace of mind. The facility's grounds, landscaping, common areas, and many interior spaces are frequently described as well‑maintained and welcoming. Apartments are often called spacious, modern, and bright, and the community is praised for its amenities such as library and exercise areas, social spaces, and a robust activity program led by a committed Lifestyle Director. Dining also receives many favorable mentions for variety and quality, and specific staff members (by name) are singled out for exceptional service and responsiveness.
Care quality and staff performance appear in two very different lights across reviews. Numerous accounts celebrate attentive, proactive, and compassionate caregivers who 'go above and beyond,' provide individualized and rehabilitation‑oriented care, and maintain clear communication with families. These reviews describe efficient admissions/tour experiences, staff who help residents settle in, and families who would strongly recommend the community. Conversely, a significant subset of reviews reports troubling variability in caregiving: understaffing, long wait times for assistance, inconsistent care across shifts, and instances of inattentive or unprofessional behavior (staff on phones, use of foul language when not observed). This split suggests that while many residents receive excellent care, experiences can differ markedly depending on shift, team, or individual caregivers.
The most serious and recurring negative theme concerns medication management and safety. Multiple reviewers describe medication administration errors and discrepancies, unverified or seemingly untrained med techs, and alarming delays in receiving required medications — with cited examples including a 121‑day delay for what should be a 90‑day supply and a 98‑day delay for a subsequent 90‑day supply. One reviewer reported seven of fourteen medications being administered incorrectly. These are not minor complaints; they point to systemic issues in pharmacy coordination, medication administration protocols, staff training, and oversight. Families reporting these problems expressed severe loss of confidence and, in at least one case, relocated a loved one within months for safety reasons.
Memory care feedback is also polarized but includes several harsh critiques that merit attention. Some reviewers praised memory care staff and specific staff members as 'wonderful' and attentive, but others strongly criticized the memory care environment as substandard — describing rooms and dining areas as 'jail cell' or 'dungeon‑like,' noting lack of carpeting or privacy, exposure of residents in certain dining/back areas, and an inequitable offering of amenities compared with assisted living residents. These descriptions indicate that, while elements of memory care may be competent for some families, there are recurring concerns about the physical environment, resident dignity, and parity of services between memory care and assisted living.
Management and administration receive mixed reviews. Many reviewers commend professional, accommodating administrative staff and highlight specific managers and front‑desk personnel as particularly helpful. Several reviews praise strong leadership, long‑tenured administration, and a well‑organized community. Simultaneously, there are multiple reports alleging an incompetent or disengaged executive director, especially in relation to medication and staffing issues, and mentions of new management being 'not engaged.' Some reviewers note improvement under a new director, suggesting management performance may be in flux. Communication is another mixed area: while several families applaud proactive updates and photo sharing, others report poor communication, unreachable staff, or unanswered phones.
Facility cleanliness and safety are mostly viewed positively, but isolated but serious negative reports exist. Many reviewers describe a clean facility with a pleasant smell and well‑kept spaces; others report poor cleanliness and even a roach infestation. Because such reports are starkly inconsistent, families should seek current verification during tours and ask about pest control, housekeeping protocols, and recent inspections.
Other recurring themes: pricing and cost are noted as concerns by some families who find the community expensive. COVID lockdowns and visitation restrictions were painful for certain reviewers and affected their experience. Tours and admissions were often described positively, with staff like Crystalyn and Dominique receiving praise for informative tours; however, some tours were criticized as uninformative.
In summary, the Reserve at First Colony displays many strengths — notably compassionate frontline staff, attractive grounds, good apartments, active programming, and positive dining for many residents — that make it an appealing choice for numerous families. At the same time, there are serious, specific, and recurring concerns around medication management, memory care environment and parity, staffing consistency, and isolated cleanliness issues. These negative themes are significant because they directly affect resident safety and dignity. Prospective residents and families should weigh the generally warm atmosphere and strong staff relationships against the reported medication and memory care problems, verify current management actions and corrective measures during a tour, ask for documentation of medication handling protocols and staff training, and request recent inspection or pest control records before making a placement decision.
