Overall sentiment across the reviews for Applewood of Brookfield is mixed but leans toward concern. Several reviewers explicitly describe a facility that was previously well-run but has experienced a decline in quality since a change in ownership. That decline is associated with multiple operational and care-related issues described below. At the same time, other reviewers highlight clearly positive aspects — notably the newer building, an attractive facility, and hands-on owners named Debbie and Greg — indicating that experiences vary and some families have had a good or even warm, home-like experience.
Care quality and safety are recurring themes. Multiple summaries refer to mediocre or poor care and raise serious safety concerns, including incidents of residents leaving the facility (escape incidents) and reports of poor supervision. These are among the most serious complaints and are raised alongside questions about management's oversight and responsiveness. The phrase poor supervision appears in several summaries, and reviewers link that to specific safety problems, which suggests systemic lapses rather than isolated events.
Staffing-related issues are prominent. Reviews frequently describe staff as overworked and underappreciated, and multiple summaries mention high staff turnover. These staffing pressures are tied by reviewers to declines in care quality and supervision. Despite these systemic complaints, reviewers also note that there are "some wonderful caregivers" and that some staff are caring and committed; this indicates variability in individual caregiver performance and suggests that positive staff interactions still occur even amid operational strain.
Facilities and occupancy present contrasting impressions. The building itself is repeatedly described as newer and very nice, and some families report the atmosphere feels like home. However, other reviewers note unkempt grounds and a generally negative facility impression. Several reviewers mention many empty beds, pointing to low occupancy; this could reflect reputational or operational difficulties and may also affect staff morale and the financial stability of the community.
Dining and day-to-day life are also areas of complaint. Food quality is explicitly described as terrible in multiple summaries, and dining complaints are paired with broader statements about mediocre care and lack of attention to resident needs. There is little detail about activities in the provided summaries, but given the other criticisms, reviewers imply that the overall resident experience has substantive weaknesses.
Management and transparency emerge as a major fault line. Multiple reviewers call out poor management and express concern about the ability to visit or assess loved ones (for example, an inability to see a parent and evaluate their care). Hands-on ownership by specific individuals (Debbie and Greg) is cited positively by some reviewers, suggesting that leadership presence can be beneficial; however, other reviews explicitly blame the new ownership for a decline in standards. This split suggests recent changes in leadership or policy have produced inconsistent outcomes and polarized family perceptions.
In summary, these reviews depict a community with strong contrasting elements: a physically appealing, newer facility and some highly valued caregivers and owners, versus significant operational problems — notably safety lapses, declining care quality, staffing shortages and turnover, poor food, management shortcomings, unkempt grounds, and low occupancy. The pattern suggests that prospective residents and families may encounter very different experiences depending on timing, specific caregivers, and the unit or staff on duty. The strongest recurring red flags are safety incidents and supervision failures, followed by staffing stress and managerial concerns, while the primary positives are the facility itself and the presence of some engaged owners and caregivers.
