Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans toward appreciation of front-line caregiving and rehabilitation services paired with notable, recurrent concerns about dining, administration, and consistency of care. Repeatedly, families and residents praise the nursing staff, therapists, and many direct-care personnel for being compassionate, skilled, and responsive. Multiple accounts describe nurses and CNAs as patient and kind, therapists as effective in restoring strength and mobility, and hospice coordination as strong and supportive. These positive care elements are often cited as the primary reason families felt comfortable placing loved ones at the community and for positive rehab outcomes.
Facility atmosphere and amenities are frequently noted as strengths. Reviewers describe the campus as home-like, welcoming, and clean, with comfortable private rooms or villas that allow personalization. Amenities called out include kitchenettes, washers/dryers in some units, an on-site salon, shopping shuttle, chaplain services, and community programming such as music, Parkinson’s group support, and visiting church groups. Several families specifically praised seamless admissions and particular staff members in sales and community relations who set expectations well and eased transitions (names cited in reviews). Safety practices in emergencies and the calm handling of drills or incidents were also positively recognized in multiple accounts.
However, dining and nutrition emerge as one of the most contentious and frequently mentioned problem areas. Reports vary widely — some reviewers praise tasty, well-cooked meals and even personal cooks, while many others describe undercooked or overcooked entrees, moldy fruit, freezer-burnt vegetables, repetitive menu cycles, and overly small portions. A serious and recurring theme is the failure to reliably provide diabetic-appropriate meals: families report carb-heavy and sugary options being served to diabetic residents, lack of a true diabetic menu, and dietitian disconnects. These inconsistencies create both dissatisfaction and potential health risks for vulnerable residents.
Administration, management, and communication are another major cluster of concerns. Numerous reviews describe rude or unresponsive administrative and social work staff, failure to communicate about falls or health changes, and instances where families felt lied to or ignored by case workers. Billing and contract problems are repeatedly flagged: high admission fees, delayed or missing refunds, and confusing or incomplete contract handling contributed to stress for multiple families. There are also reports of corporate-level issues affecting local operations, and examples where program cancellations or policy changes (especially during the COVID era) were poorly communicated or implemented.
Safety, staffing, and clinical coordination show mixed patterns. Many families report excellent, attentive nursing and feel their loved ones are safe and well cared for; others report troubling incidents such as falls without timely staff response, unsupervised transfers, inadequate mobility assistance, and in rare cases, bedsore development or improper discharge planning. These negative reports often accompany comments about poor communication or social worker inaction. Staffing appears to be variable by time and unit — some reviewers praise long-tenured staff and consistent care teams, while others perceive understaffing, hurried or disrespectful interactions, and biased or gossipy behavior among staff.
COVID-era impacts are mentioned explicitly and significantly. Several reviewers draw a sharp contrast between pre-pandemic service levels (excellent) and pandemic-era reductions that included dining room closures, suspended activities, restricted visitation, and social isolation. Families attribute measurable declines in mood and even cognitive status to prolonged isolation and reduced social programming in some cases. While some of those service reductions are understandable in the public-health context, reviewers indicate the facility's communication and mitigation strategies were uneven and sometimes inadequate.
Housekeeping and maintenance feedback is also mixed. Many reviews praise clean common areas and prompt maintenance, but others describe inconsistent cleaning practices (surface cleaning instead of proper sanitization), laundry mismanagement, and periods of maintenance neglect. Technology and utility concerns appear occasionally (intermittent internet/TV/phone service), and some physical areas like older nursing wings or crowded rooms are described as outdated or having odor problems by a minority of reviewers.
In summary, Asbury Place Kingsport is characterized by strong points in hands-on care, rehab outcomes, and a welcoming, small-community feel for many residents — particularly driven by dedicated nursing and therapy teams and some standout admissions staff. At the same time, the consistency of dining services, administrative communication, billing transparency, and some aspects of safety and housekeeping are recurring pain points. The reviews indicate experience can vary substantially by time period (notably before vs during the pandemic), by unit, and depending on which staff members are involved. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strong direct-care and therapy reputation against reported administrative and dining inconsistencies, verify current dining/diabetic meal practices, ask detailed questions about communication protocols after incidents, and confirm contract and refund terms up front to minimize the risk of the negative experiences documented by some families.
