Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed and polarized: multiple reviewers praise the facility’s dining, some aspects of staff friendliness, and services like hospice friendliness and transportation, while other reviews describe serious care and cleanliness problems that prompted residents or families to move. The recurring positive themes center on hospitality-related services and a generally pleasant environment for many residents, whereas the negative themes focus on lapses in personal care, hygiene, and management issues that are significant enough in several accounts to raise safety and quality concerns.
Care quality shows the widest split. Several reviewers specifically commend that the facility offers multiple levels of care, is willing to work with hospice, and that the administrator is accessible. Those reviewers often note smiling residents, a calm, low-drama atmosphere, and staff who are helpful and team-oriented. Conversely, other reviews allege neglectful care: soaked patients, lack of barrier pads ("no chux in chair"), dirty clothes, and unsanitary conditions. There are also mentions of nurses not ensuring showers for all residents and at least one account of a resident being moved to another facility because of perceived poor care. These negative reports are serious (personal hygiene and cleanliness) and suggest inconsistencies or breakdowns in routine personal care and oversight.
Staff and management impressions are similarly mixed. Positive comments consistently point to friendly, helpful caregivers and a team approach that makes visits more enjoyable. Some reviewers were impressed by staff and the way the community operates. On the other hand, there are explicit complaints about "incompetent administration" and "mean staff." That contrast indicates variability in staff behavior and possibly uneven leadership or staffing stability. Notably, one line says the administrator is accessible, yet another calls administration incompetent — this points to either changes over time, differing experiences among families, or inconsistencies between departments.
Dining and food receive predominantly favorable remarks: multiple reviewers describe the kitchen as the best, amazing, or providing great food; some residents and visitors are happy with meals and the dining environment. However, a small set of complaints target meal quality (meals too tough) and seasoning (too salty). Meal service flexibility is a plus — there is an on-site dining room and the option to have meals delivered to rooms — which supports residents with mobility or health limitations.
Facilities and cost perceptions are somewhat mixed as well. The community is described at least once as "beautiful," "cosy," and "comfortable," but there are also mentions of damaged chairs and unsanitary conditions in other reviews. One reviewer explicitly called the facility overpriced relative to the services and accommodations received, indicating that perceived value for cost is a concern for some families.
Patterns and practical implications: the most important pattern is inconsistency. Many positive operational features (hospice openness, transportation, accessible administrator, good kitchen, friendly staff) exist alongside sporadic but severe reports of neglect and hygiene failures. When negative incidents cited are as explicit as soaked residents and dirty clothing, they warrant serious follow-up. The coexistence of strong positive comments and harsh negative incidents suggests variability across shifts, units, or time periods rather than uniform performance.
In summary, Friendship Assisted Living has clear strengths in hospitality-oriented services (food, dining options, transportation), an overall cozy atmosphere for many residents, and some reviewers note accessible leadership and team-oriented staff. However, there are credible-sounding complaints about personal care, cleanliness, maintenance, administration, and inconsistent staff behavior that have led some families to relocate loved ones. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong positives against the serious negatives, and consider targeted follow-up (questions or documentation about staffing ratios, hygiene protocols, incident and maintenance logs, meal preparation standards, and hospice coordination) when evaluating this community further.
