The reviews present a sharply mixed and in several respects troubling picture of Royal Manor - West. Positive comments emphasize that some members of the nursing staff were compassionate and provided excellent care to individual residents; reviewers specifically noted very good food and instances where nurses were emotionally invested—some even crying because they cared. These positive experiences suggest there are staff members who are dedicated to residents’ wellbeing and that dining can be a strength of the facility.
However, a substantial portion of the feedback raises serious safety, sanitation, and management concerns. Multiple reviewers reported antiquated equipment (crank-style beds, very poor mattresses) and worn mobility aids (old wheelchairs with cracked arms). More alarming were reports of exposed electrical wires and unsanitary conditions: soiled bed linens, a wheelchair and patient observed with fecal matter, and delayed changes of urine bags. Those breakdowns in basic hygiene and maintenance culminated in at least one reported urinary tract infection that required hospitalization, indicating infection‑control failures with potentially severe consequences.
Care quality and emergency response are inconsistent. While some staff are described as wonderfully compassionate, other accounts describe delayed basic care (urine bag changes), denial of timely EMT access, and situations where residents were not treated well. This juxtaposition suggests variability in staff performance and/or staffing levels. Reviewers also characterize the facility as underfunded, which can help explain aged equipment, maintenance problems, and possibly insufficient staffing or training. Several comments also raise concerns about administrative behavior, including staff shouting about bills to elderly residents or relatives and worries about potential Medicare/Medicaid exploitation—both of which point to troubling management or billing practices and create additional stress for residents and families.
There are recurring themes involving dementia care and family dynamics. At least one review notes the difficulty of caring for a patient with Alzheimer’s and mentions a difficult sibling, indicating that family conflict and the special needs of cognitively impaired residents can complicate perceptions of care and interactions with staff. The presence of compassionate nurses does not fully mitigate systemic shortcomings when environmental safety, sanitation, and administrative practices are in question.
In summary, the dominant patterns across reviews are mixed—pockets of very good, empathetic care and pleasing dining coexist with significant and recurring complaints about facility maintenance, sanitation, emergency access, and administrative conduct. The most serious issues are those that pose direct risks to resident health and safety (exposed wires, soiled linens, fecal contamination, delayed care, and a reported UTI hospitalization). These indicate systemic problems likely tied to funding, staffing, training, or management practices. Any decision-making based on these reviews should weigh the documented compassionate staff and good food against the concrete safety and sanitation failures and the administrative/billing concerns highlighted by multiple reviewers.
