Overall impression: The reviews present a mixed but strongly polarized picture of The Gardens of Mount Pleasant. Several reviewers highlight positive aspects such as a well-maintained and attractive facility, pleasant dining, engaging activities, private rooms with large windows, and staff who make regular rounds and monitor vitals. At the same time, other reviews describe serious care-quality and safety problems — including medication errors, neglectful behavior, missed appointments, and delayed emergency responses — that substantially undermine confidence in the community for some families. The pattern is one of inconsistent performance: the physical environment and programming are often praised, while execution of nursing care and frontline staff responsiveness varies widely.
Care quality and safety: The most consequential concerns relate to clinical care and patient safety. Positive comments describe proactive care, regular rounding, early detection of illness, and situations in which staff appeared attentive. Conversely, multiple reviews allege critical lapses: an incorrect blood thinner injection, improper injection technique, pills dropped on the floor and kicked under the bed, missed appointments, and a report of delayed emergency care for six days. These latter accounts point to potentially serious medication- and emergency-response failures. Several reviewers explicitly stated that the community felt unsafe for medically complex or high-acuity residents (for example, a cancer patient). The presence of both attentive monitoring in some cases and severe errors in others suggests inconsistency in clinical practice and supervision.
Staffing and behavior: Staff behavior is described as mixed. Some reviewers singled out kind, helpful employees and praised staff who provided good care. However, other reviews describe staff as unhelpful, indifferent, or neglectful. Reported problems include lack of on-site nursing at all times, failure to provide basic assistance (no glass of water, no call button in reach), and rushed or inadequate responses that resulted in ER transfers. This variability suggests uneven training, staffing levels, or management oversight. Several negative accounts imply that certain shifts or individual caregivers may not meet expected standards, while other staff members perform well.
Facilities, rooms, and environment: The facility itself receives consistent positive remarks. Multiple reviewers described the building as new, well-kept, and attractive both inside and out. Rooms are frequently described as large, with private rooms and big windows that residents appreciate. Hand sanitizer was noted as available, and outdoor space/yards are mentioned positively. One reviewer noted high room temperatures (around 85 degrees), indicating possible climate control issues in at least one unit. Roommate situations were noted in the context of temporary stays, which may affect privacy or comfort for some residents.
Dining and activities: Dining and programming are clear strengths for many residents. Several reviewers reported that their family members liked the meals and that food quality was good. Social and recreational programming — daily activities, bingo, and a full itinerary — are commonly cited and appear to contribute to resident satisfaction, especially for those who say their relatives 'love it' and appreciate having plenty to do.
Management and patterns: The most notable pattern is inconsistency across similar domains: clinical care, staff responsiveness, and basic resident supports. Where the facility shines — environment, dining, and activities — it generally receives positive feedback. Where it struggles — medication administration, urgent care responsiveness, and staff dependability — reviewers report significant and potentially dangerous lapses. These problems are not isolated to minor grievances but include medically significant events (medication errors and delayed emergency care). The coexistence of welcoming physical amenities and troubling care incidents suggests that management may be focusing successfully on appearance, programming, and hospitality while needing to strengthen clinical oversight, staff training, protocols for medications and emergencies, and mechanisms for family communication and visitation.
Bottom line: The Gardens of Mount Pleasant offers many of the nonclinical strengths families look for in senior living (new, attractive facility; private rooms with views; robust activities and good dining). However, multiple reviews raise serious red flags about clinical reliability and staff consistency. Prospective residents and families should weigh the importance of the facility's environment and programming against the reported variability in clinical care, and if considering the community, ask direct questions about nurse staffing patterns, medication administration protocols, emergency response procedures, staff training, and how management investigates and resolves reported incidents.
