Overall impression: Reviews of Richfield Living are mixed but lean toward positive in areas of everyday resident life (activities, grounds, dining, social community) while raising significant and specific concerns around management responsiveness and a few serious safety/administrative incidents. Many reviewers emphasize the facility’s attractive setting, active social programming, and caring staff, but several troubling reports about access, communication, and safety cannot be ignored and materially affect the overall assessment.
Care quality and staff: A common theme is that many families and residents find staff to be friendly, caring, and helpful. Multiple reviewers highlighted long‑tenured employees, positive first impressions from tours, and staff who supported residents through adjustment periods. Some families described the care as outstanding and said they would recommend the community, citing helpfulness and good value. Conversely, other reviewers reported unhappy staff, administrative changes, and experiences they characterized as neglect. These negative reports include both lower staff morale and isolated incidents that erode trust. The result is variability: care can be excellent, but experiences appear inconsistent between households.
Facilities, housing, and social life: The campus itself is repeatedly praised. Reviewers note beautiful grounds, gardens, three lakes, walking trails, and outdoor amenities like swings that contribute to an appealing environment. Housing options are broad — studios, two sizes of one‑bedrooms, two‑bedrooms, and cottages — giving prospective residents choices for different needs and budgets. Cleanliness and apartment design received positive mentions, as did a welcoming atmosphere and lots of familiar faces, which supports a strong social community. The social environment is a clear strength: frequent activities, a daily activities calendar, day trips, and an active dining program foster engagement and a sense of community.
Dining and activities: Dining is another commonly praised area. Reviewers mention a variety of meals, the ability to order food, and even a cook‑your‑own option, which suggests flexibility for resident preferences. Many residents and families appreciated the variety and quality of food and the busy activities schedule, from meal choices to outings and daily programming, which reinforce resident satisfaction and social opportunities.
Management, safety, and communication concerns: The most serious and recurring negative themes involve management responsiveness, access/communication policies, and safety incidents. One reviewer described a prolonged, unresolved four‑month issue in which phone calls were denied, and a power of attorney (POA) was reportedly asked to provide a passcode; the family reported missed calls during a critical window and substantial pain and frustration culminating in the resident’s death. Other accounts mention a used syringe being found and allegations of alcohol‑related behavior at the board level. Multiple reviews cited slow or failed management response to problems and administrative turnover. These are significant red flags: even if they are not universal experiences, they are severe enough that prospective residents and families should seek clear, written policies and evidence of how the community handles incidents, complaints, and family communications.
Scope of care and transitions: Some reviewers noted that residents eventually needed to move to an assisted living level for more personal care, indicating that the level of care available in certain living options may not be sufficient for some needs. Prospective residents should clarify the distinctions between independent living, assisted living, and memory care on this campus and the process and availability for transitions between levels.
Practical considerations and recommendations: Affordability and perceived value are strengths mentioned by several reviewers, and tour experiences are often positive thanks to helpful guides. However, distance from family was cited by a few as a deterrent. Given the mix of highly positive day‑to‑day reports and a smaller number of very troubling management/safety reports, families should do due diligence: ask for written policies on phone access and POA procedures, incident reporting and resolution timelines, staffing ratios and turnover, background checks and safety protocols, and examples of how serious incidents were handled. Verify the availability and responsiveness of leadership and request references from current families. Consider touring multiple times, meeting staff across shifts, and checking on the condition of outdoor areas and common spaces.
Bottom line: Richfield Living appears to offer many strengths — strong programming, attractive grounds, diverse housing options, good dining, and many caring, long‑term staff — that create a lively and comfortable environment for many residents. At the same time, several reviewers reported serious concerns about management responsiveness, safety, and communication that warrant careful investigation before committing. Prospective residents and families should balance the positive everyday living attributes against the documented concerns and verify policies and management practices in person to ensure the community matches their expectations and needs.
