The reviews of All Seasons Senior Living of West Jordan are highly mixed, with a clear polarization between reviewers who describe a warm, family-like environment and those who report serious operational and safety concerns. A substantial portion of reviewers emphasize exemplary interpersonal care: staff are often characterized as cheerful, helpful, upbeat and compassionate, and many reviewers say the community feels like a second family. Several testimonials name specific staff (Rebecca and Jordyn) and leadership as responsive and effective, noting that staff made transitions easier and addressed concerns quickly. Multiple reviews also emphasize a smaller, personable setting, private rooms and bathrooms after remodeling, plentiful activities, church services, and a generally clean environment that supports social interaction and resident dignity.
Care quality and staff performance are recurring themes with both very positive and very negative reports. Positive accounts describe patient, respectful caregivers and personalized attention; people say they feel comfortable leaving loved ones there, and many reviewers praise kindness, patience, and the home-like atmosphere. Conversely, other reviewers report rude management, uncaring nurses, and untrained aides. There are allegations of neglect (for example, residents reportedly left in rooms without air conditioning for days) and even injuries attributed to staff mistakes. These conflicting accounts suggest inconsistent staffing, variable training levels, or uneven management oversight across shifts or time periods.
Dining and kitchen service are another area of divided opinion. Several reviewers compliment a high-functioning kitchen, homemade and fresh meals, menu variety, and healthy options. Yet other reports contradict this, noting a lack of a professional food service manager, meals prepared by various non-specialized staff, poor cooking quality, canned fruit being served, and snacks promoted as nutritious but questionable (e.g., chips). This inconsistency indicates variability in food quality or recent changes in kitchen management that affect resident experiences.
Facility condition and amenities are generally seen positively by many reviewers: newly remodeled spaces, private bedrooms and bathrooms, cleanliness, and active programming are repeatedly cited. However, some reviewers say the facility did not match online images, referenced strangers roaming halls, and described the environment as unsafe or not well maintained. There is also at least one report of front-porch smoking despite rules against it. These comments point to potential gaps between marketing materials and on-site reality and to lapses in enforcing community policies.
Administrative and financial concerns appear frequently and are significant for several reviewers. Specific complaints include a $1,000 cleaning fee deducted from a refund and delays in refund processing, which created perceptions of greed or unfair business practices. Confusion over the facility's operational status (some listings indicating permanent closure while others did not) raised trust issues and uncertainty about continuity of care. Understaffing, appointment scheduling problems, and unclear front-desk procedures were also cited as administrative shortcomings that impacted families' experiences.
Safety and oversight are the most serious themes among negative reviews. Reports of strangers in hallways, inconsistent staffing, untrained aides causing resident injuries, and extreme claims about residents being left without air conditioning are alarming. Even if these incidents reflect isolated occurrences, they warrant careful attention from prospective families and regulators. Several reviewers explicitly stated they would not recommend the community based on these safety and neglect concerns, while others strongly recommended it based on positive experiences.
Overall, the reviews portray a community with strong positives—compassionate staff (in many cases), a family atmosphere, active programming, and clean, remodeled living spaces—but also with troubling negatives that include inconsistent care, food-service variability, administrative/financial disputes, and serious safety allegations. The pattern suggests variability over time or between units/shifts: some families encounter highly attentive, skilled teams, while others experience lapses in care or professionalism.
For prospective residents and families: verify the most current status of the facility (open/closed and licensing), ask for references and recent inspection reports, meet regular staff members across multiple shifts, review the contract regarding cleaning fees and refund timelines, tour the kitchen and dining area, and inquire about staff training, turnover rates, and incident reporting. Those who prioritize a small, home-like community with active programming may find many strengths here, but families should perform careful due diligence because the reviews indicate important inconsistencies in safety, management practices, and meal quality.
