Overall sentiment in the reviews for Precious Group Home Care LLC is strongly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers describe the home as caring, clean, and like a "home away from home," while a distinct set of reviewers report serious problems including filth, mistreatment, safety lapses, and possible administrative misconduct. Multiple reviews praise specific staff members (including a nurse named Rita in several accounts) and emphasize personalized, hands-on nursing, three meals a day, and staff assistance with medical appointments. Those positive reports frequently highlight a small-capacity, family-like environment, affordable and smooth admissions, compassionate end-of-life care, and staff who are reachable and go out of their way to help residents. These reviews emphasize cleanliness, good customer service, varied meals, and a relaxed, peaceful atmosphere where residents feel cared for.
By contrast, other reviewers describe troubling conditions and behaviors. Complaints include overcrowded rooms (reports of three cots in a single room), filthy bathrooms, bugs/spiders, expired or unsafe food, and general poor maintenance such as dusty vents, stained cushions, dark rooms, and mismatched furniture. Several reviews allege rationed or low-quality meals (cereal, ramen, hot dogs, bologna sandwiches), smoking on a small patio littered with cigarette butts near resident spaces, and basic safety concerns such as bed confinement without appropriate rails. Medication errors and "meds not right" are explicitly mentioned in at least one review. These accounts suggest operational and environmental lapses that could materially affect resident safety and quality of life.
Staff behavior and management are another major point of divergence. Many reviewers repeatedly praise staff as loving, compassionate, and generous, noting that residents feel like family and that staff provide attentive nursing and personal care. Multiple positive accounts describe being kept updated on resident status and express strong willingness to recommend the facility. However, opposing reviews accuse staff — including at least one named manager (Rita in a negative context) — of rude, abusive behavior, humiliation of residents in front of others, privacy invasions, and owner misconduct. There are also allegations of sporadic family communication, an irritated manager, and a damaged phone that impaired resident/family contact. These conflicting narratives indicate inconsistent staff conduct or variations in experience between shifts or individual caregivers.
Several reviews raise serious administrative and ethical concerns beyond day-to-day care: some reviewers allege collusion between the home’s manager and an associated rehabilitation facility, suggest potential Medicaid exploitation, and explicitly accuse the home of misleading marketing (a misleading website). These are serious claims affecting trust and regulatory compliance. While they appear in a subset of reviews, they contrast sharply with accounts praising transparent, helpful staff and good communication. The presence of both glowing and damning reviews could reflect time-based changes in management or care, differing standards among reviewers, or inconsistent practices across residents/rooms.
Dining, activities, and transportation show mixed feedback. Many positive reviewers specifically note three home-cooked meals daily and varied menus; a few highlight prayer and communal meals as part of a pleasant environment. Conversely, other reviewers describe very low-quality or rationed food, expired items, and insufficient nutrition. Activities are criticized as nonexistent by some reviewers, and transportation availability is inconsistent — a number of reviewers report staff help with doctor visits, while others complain of no transportation and poor family communication about appointments.
In sum, the reviews depict a facility with two distinct reputational poles: one where staff are highly compassionate, attentive, and create a clean, peaceful, home-like environment that supports medical needs and family communication; and another where residents experience overcrowding, sanitation failures, safety lapses, poor meals, abusive or neglectful staff behavior, and troubling administrative conduct. These patterns suggest inconsistency in care quality and operations. Prospective families should treat the contrasting reports as a signal to perform careful, specific due diligence: touring multiple rooms, verifying room occupancy and safety features, inspecting hygiene and food storage, asking for references from current families, reviewing medication management procedures, checking state inspection and complaint records, and clarifying transportation, activities, and communication protocols. Such checks will help determine whether a prospective resident’s likely experience will align with the positive or negative reviews described here.
