Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive when it comes to staff attitude, programming, and dining. Multiple reviewers explicitly praise the staff as caring, attentive, pleasant, and helpful; families report good communication, that their loved ones are happier and more independent, and that memory and day-to-day functioning have improved. Several comments note an active calendar of daily activities that residents enjoy, along with meals that are appreciated. At least one reviewer summarized a better-than-average overall impression and would recommend the center, and another reviewer noted residents are generally not often sick, suggesting acceptable clinical outcomes for some residents.
However, there are serious and specific negative reports that must not be overlooked. One reviewer described substantial hygiene and care failures — a resident allegedly went almost a month without a bath, arrived covered in dried feces, and experienced mishandling of incontinence garments (described as being 'sprayed'), leading to a strongly negative overall experience. Other reviewers described the facility as dirty and in need of a facelift to create a cheerier atmosphere. These accounts indicate that while interpersonal care and programming can be strong, there are concerning lapses in personal care, cleanliness, and dignity for at least some residents.
Safety and management impressions are contradictory across the reviews. One reviewer mentioned adequate safety protocols, whereas another explicitly called out poor security and no visitor check-in. Additionally, one review praises management for effectively handling a difficult situation, which suggests that the staff and leadership can respond well in some circumstances. Taken together, the pattern is one of inconsistent experience: some families encounter strong, communicative staff and good management, while others experience serious problems with hygiene, security, and cleanliness.
Facility and atmosphere issues are also a recurring theme. Beyond episodic cleanliness problems, a few reviewers noted that the building or décor could use updating to present a brighter, more cheerful environment. This ties into perceptions of neglect for certain residents — when physical upkeep and attention to basic hygiene are inconsistent, it negatively affects the overall impression, even when programming and staff interactions are good.
In summary, Ashton Parke Care Center appears to offer many strengths: engaged and caring staff, good communication with families, active programming, decent dining, and positive clinical impressions for several residents. At the same time, there are serious red flags in a subset of reviews concerning cleanliness, personal hygiene care, mishandling of incontinence, inconsistent care quality, and visitor security protocols. These divergent reports point to variability in resident experiences that prospective residents and families should explore further by asking targeted questions about hygiene routines, staff turnover and training, cleaning protocols, security/check-in procedures, and examples of how management addresses complaints or incidents.
