Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans toward concern when it comes to clinical suitability, staffing, and facility adequacy. Many reviewers consistently praise the interpersonal aspects of the home: staff are described as caring, kind and friendly, and some guests felt the residence had a warm, home-like atmosphere and pleasant grounds. A few reviewers specifically called the facility clean and bright and highlighted particular staff (e.g., Shauna) as personable. These positives suggest the home can provide a small, community-style environment that some families find preferable to larger institutional settings.
However, multiple and recurring criticisms raise significant red flags. The most prominent concerns relate to staffing levels and dementia care capability. One review cites a poor staff-to-resident ratio (2:17), and other comments describe staff as unqualified or lacking Alzheimer’s/dementia training. Reviewers repeatedly emphasized that Woodland is not a memory care center and that staff do not have the training or structure to manage residents with Alzheimer’s or significant cognitive decline. Several reports note residents “sitting in the living room all day” and a lack of formal activities or structured programming, which is especially problematic for cognitively impaired residents who need engagement and specialized supervision.
Facility condition and accessibility are another area of consistent complaint. Multiple summaries mention cramped common areas (small living room and hot TV room), very small bathrooms, and limited bathroom availability for the number of residents. Bedrooms in the basement and on the second floor were described as cramped, and there is no elevator—making the site unsuitable for anyone with mobility impairments. Reviewers also noted the facility is not ADA compliant. Maintenance and cleanliness impressions were mixed: while some called the home clean and bright, others reported worn wallpaper, old carpet or linoleum, an unkept appearance, and kitchen cleanliness concerns. There are also reports that residents sometimes eat at a bench table in the kitchen, which reviewers cited as evidence of limited dining space and amenities.
Safety, management practices, and incidents were raised by several reviewers. Specific operational lapses mentioned include staff being unprepared for visits, an alarm sounding on arrival, and a report that a resident was removed or shoved out unexpectedly—an allegation that families will likely view as very serious. Some reviewers described staff behavior as odd or unprofessional in specific instances (for example, a staff member refusing a handshake after washing hands). There is also a recurring perception that management may be more money-driven than resident-focused and that value for cost is poor. These operational and reputational concerns compound worries about staff training and the level of care provided.
Dining, activities, and daily life were cited as areas needing improvement. Several reviewers described limited or low-quality meals (cheap dinners) and a lack of structured activities or programming, leaving residents with little to do. Combined with staffing shortages and the absence of dementia-focused services, this paints a picture of a residence that may be adequate for a relatively independent, mobile older adult who benefits from a small-home setting, but not for someone who needs more hands-on care, cognitive support, or mobility accommodations.
In summary, Woodland Assisted Living Home appears to offer the advantages of a small, personal, home-like setting with friendly staff and a pleasant location, which some families appreciated. At the same time, there are repeated, specific concerns about staffing ratios and qualifications, lack of dementia care and activities, accessibility and maintenance issues, limited bathrooms and cramped spaces, inconsistent cleanliness reports, and troubling operational incidents. Based on these reviews, Woodland may be appropriate for ambulatory, cognitively intact seniors who want a small residential environment and do not require memory care or significant assistance with mobility. It is not recommended, according to multiple reviewers, for residents with Alzheimer’s/dementia, significant mobility limitations, or those who need structured daily programming and confident, trained staffing levels. Families should verify staffing ratios, training in dementia care, accessibility (elevator/ADA compliance), bathroom availability, and incident history in person before making placement decisions.
