Overall sentiment is highly polarized: the reviews contain both strongly positive endorsements and serious negative allegations. Many reviewers praise the staff as caring, cooperative, and supportive, and several families describe the center as a lifesaver that treats residents with dignity, offers job assistance, and fosters a family-like atmosphere. Multiple summaries highlight a good staff-to-patient ratio, clean living spaces (rooms, bathrooms, and kitchens), and meaningful activities such as participation in the Special Olympics. For a subset of clients—particularly people with intellectual disabilities—reviewers specifically recommend the center and commend caregivers for their dedication.
Conversely, a substantial number of reviews raise grave safety and quality concerns. There are repeated reports of residents escaping the facility, attacks on residents, bruising, and allegations of abuse or mistreatment. Some reviewers describe staff indifference or inaction during these incidents, contributing to an unsafe feeling. Several summaries are categorical in urging others to avoid the facility, using terms such as “do not live there,” “not worth it,” and “avoid.” These negative reports include serious claims that have prompted complaints to the Utah State Department of Health and calls for investigation.
Facility condition and atmosphere are another divided theme. Multiple reviewers praise interior cleanliness, while others describe the exterior and interior as depressing or even ‘trashed.’ Visitors have noticed an elderly resident outside who appeared tired and unwell, adding to concerns about supervision and wellbeing. Activity offerings earn positive notes (Special Olympics participation), but the perception of the physical environment varies widely between reviewers, indicating inconsistent maintenance or differences in reviewers’ expectations or experiences.
Staff performance is described in sharply contrasting terms. Many reviewers emphasize caring, attentive staff who go above and beyond and treat residents with love and dignity. At the same time, other reviewers allege negative staff behavior, including mistreatment and inaction during crises. Some reviews acknowledge that certain problems arise from in-house resident behaviors rather than staff conduct, which introduces nuance: incidents may be caused by the complex needs and behaviors of residents as well as by staff performance. The presence of “new management” in the summaries suggests possible recent leadership change, which could be related to variability in experiences or to attempts to address prior problems.
Management, oversight, and systemic context come up repeatedly. Several reviewers mention meager state funding and a need for external advocates, and some have filed formal complaints with state health authorities. These points suggest that resource constraints and regulatory scrutiny are part of the background landscape. The mixture of glowing and scathing reviews, together with complaints to regulators, point to either inconsistent practice across shifts/teams, changes over time (e.g., before vs. after management changes), or a combination of resident behavioral challenges and staff performance issues.
In sum, the reviews paint a conflicted picture: for some families and residents, Lindon Care & Training Center provides compassionate, valuable care with clean facilities and meaningful activities; for others, it is associated with safety lapses, alleged abuse, escapes, and an overall unsafe or depressing environment. The most prominent themes are (1) polarized experiences of staff quality, (2) serious safety and incident reports that have prompted regulatory complaints, and (3) inconsistent impressions of the physical environment. Given these starkly divergent accounts, anyone evaluating this facility would be prudent to seek current, objective information: review recent inspection reports, ask the facility about incident/escape prevention policies and staffing patterns, speak directly with multiple families of current residents, and arrange an in-person tour to assess cleanliness, atmosphere, staffing, and security first-hand.
