Overall sentiment about Pheasant View Assisted Living is highly mixed, with a preponderance of comments praising the physical environment, social programming, and individual staff members, alongside numerous and sometimes serious operational and care-related concerns. Many reviewers emphasize the facility's new, attractive building and home-like atmosphere: rooms are described as spacious with private bathrooms, walk-in closets, and temperature control. Common positive points include a clean facility with welcoming décor (no "hospital smell"), well-maintained grounds, apartment-like rooms that allow personal items, and amenities such as mini-fridges or in-room freezers. The small scale (around 21 rooms) is frequently highlighted as a benefit that creates an intimate, easy-to-navigate setting and a comfortable, family-like atmosphere.
Staff and caregiving receive highly polarized feedback. Numerous reviews use words like "amazing," "compassionate," "attentive," and "professional" to describe CNAs, aides, and administrators (several reviewers single out named directors/administrators positively). Many families report responsive caregivers, peace of mind, and staff who treat residents like family. At the same time, a significant cluster of reviews reports the opposite experience: understaffing, high turnover, missed care, and poor training. Specific operational problems raised include CNAs who may not be properly licensed or trained (an allegation noted in the review set), single-aide coverage in memory care at times, and staff quitting in numbers—conditions that several reviewers link to declines in care quality and safety. These conflicting narratives suggest that experiences vary widely by time and by individual staff on duty.
Services, dining, and activities are generally strong points in many accounts. The facility is noted for offering three meals a day plus snacks, and many residents/families praise the food as delicious. Activities are robust for a small community: reviewers list stretching classes, book clubs, movies, church services, music therapy, bingo, crafts, Wii/mind games, language classes, and daily engagement programs. Additional services reported include on-site nurse assessments, transportation to medical appointments, physical therapy, home health services, and memory-care programming. Reviewers who are satisfied frequently cite these services as enhancing well-being and independence.
Despite those positives, operations and consistency are major concerns. Several reviews document delays in basic housekeeping and laundry—examples include room/bathroom cleaning delayed for two weeks or longer and laundry lagging behind for multiple cycles—plus instances of understaffing in kitchen and care roles. Communication problems appear in multiple entries: difficulty reaching staff by phone, full voicemail boxes, staff not present in the office, and inconsistent follow-through on promises. Some reviews describe management-related issues far beyond routine communication lapses, including unprofessional behavior, alleged harassment, threats of arrest, privacy invasions, refusal to share owner information, and other actions that prompted family distress and, in one case, mention of potential legal action. Multiple reviewers also reference a decline in quality following management changes, indicating that the facility's performance may vary substantially depending on current leadership and staffing.
Patterns and practical implications: The recurring themes point to a facility with many structural strengths—modern, clean environment; strong programming; and many individual staff members who deliver excellent, caring service—coexisting with operational instability that can materially affect resident care. The small scale is both a strength (personalized setting, engaged staff when fully staffed) and a vulnerability (limited staffing depth, fewer back-up resources). The most critical red flags from the reviews are reports of missed or delayed personal care, allegations of unlicensed staff, serious management complaints, and instances where family members felt promises were not honored. There are also reports of residents becoming ill and some passing away; while the reviews do not establish causality, these reports amplify the importance of verifying clinical oversight and staffing reliability.
In summary, prospective residents and families should weigh the consistently noted positive qualities—clean, new, home-like facility; spacious private rooms; active daily programming; and many caring staff members—against the documented variability in care and management stability. Key follow-up actions for interested families would be to (1) schedule an in-person tour and observe staffing levels across different shifts, (2) ask for recent inspection and staffing records, (3) inquire specifically about staff retention, CNA licensure, and training practices, (4) request details and timelines for housekeeping and laundry service, and (5) speak with current family members about recent experience under present management. Doing so will help determine whether the facility's positive attributes are consistently realized and whether recent operational concerns have been addressed.
