Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans positive with important, recurring caveats. Many reviewers praise the facility for compassionate, attentive caregivers, a home-like environment, and management that is accessible and responsive—several specifically calling out the manager (Rachel) for doing an excellent job. Multiple accounts describe thorough reporting and continuity of care, an attentive rounding physician, quick-to-respond nursing, and recent hires of additional aides that have improved day-to-day support. The facility’s atmosphere, outdoor areas, pleasant smells, seasonal decorations, live music, baking activities, and social events are repeatedly highlighted as strengths that contribute to residents’ quality of life.
Care quality is a central theme and is described quite differently by different families. A large portion of reviewers report very good or excellent care: residents are well fed, clean, comfortable, and treated with kindness; families report peace of mind and appreciation for hospice coordination and end-of-life care. These positive reviewers note individualized care plans, staff adaptability, and monthly resident council/activity programming. Conversely, some reviewers report serious concerns—particularly around dementia and advanced Alzheimer’s care. These negative reports include insufficient training for staff on aggression and advanced memory-care behaviors, inadequate bathing and hygiene (resulting in odor), and at least one instance requiring transfer to a specialized mental health unit. The divergence suggests care quality is inconsistent and may depend on which building, staff on duty, or the resident’s specific needs.
Staffing and management receive largely positive remarks but with notable exceptions. Many reviewers compliment friendly, knowledgeable, and caring staff, as well as responsive administration and good communication. Specific praise for kitchen and cleaning staff recurs. There are also repeated mentions that turnover was a past problem but has since improved. However, other reviews raise red flags: reports of untrained or inexperienced hires, occasional failure to answer phones or coordinate appointments, managers not covering shifts, and claims of disrespect toward employees. These negative reports include concrete operational issues—no daily nurse noted by one reviewer, infrequent vital checks, and inconsistent supervision—that could directly affect clinical safety for higher-need residents.
Facilities and amenities are mostly described positively. The building is often called home-like, clean, and well-decorated, with attractive grounds and outdoor spaces that residents enjoy. Some reviewers emphasize the pleasant smell of meals and likable dining. At the same time, reviewers mention very small rooms, no in-room showers, and uneven amenities across buildings (a small beauty shop and limited activity space in some areas). Cleanliness is praised by many but contradicted by individual reports of dirty rooms, bathroom floors, soaker pads not being changed, and bed linens neglected. This inconsistency again points to variable performance depending on staff, timing, or unit.
Activities and programming are usually noted as a positive—live music, baking, board games, social events, and a resident council are described as contributing to a fun environment. Multiple reviewers, however, ask for more Alzheimer’s-specific activities and stimulation for residents with advanced memory impairment. Several accounts state activities are uneven across buildings, so families should check programming in the specific unit of interest.
There are clear patterns for prospective families to consider. Strengths appear to be compassionate front-line caregivers, a pleasant and home-like environment, engaging social activities, and a management team that in many reports is proactive and communicative. Key risks highlighted are inconsistent dementia-care expertise, spotty hygiene or clinical monitoring in some cases, staffing variability, occasional cleanliness lapses, and operational issues like appointment coordination and phone responsiveness. The reviews suggest improvement over time (added aides and better staffing) but also reveal polarized experiences: some families rate the facility as excellent and recommend it; others report severe care failures.
In summary, Comforts of Home Advanced Assisted Living and Men’s Memory Care — St. Croix Falls shows many hallmarks of a caring, homelike community with strong positives in staff attitude, environment, and some clinical responsiveness. At the same time, there are repeated, specific concerns around dementia-specialized training, personal-care consistency, and unit-to-unit variability. Families considering placement should tour the specific building/unit, ask about Alzheimer’s and aggression-management training, verify staffing ratios and nurse coverage, inquire about cleaning/linen protocols, and review how activities are tailored for advanced memory-care residents. Staying involved and advocating—recommended by multiple reviewers—appears to materially affect resident experience in this community.
