Overall sentiment in the reviews for Personally Yours Elder Care is mixed and highly polarized: several reviewers report excellent, attentive, and compassionate care, while others report serious management, policy, and quality-of-care concerns. The positive reports emphasize individualized attention, a home-like atmosphere, and caring staff. Conversely, negative reports raise multiple operational and ethical red flags — especially regarding hospice, visitation, staff professionalism, and resident socialization.
Care quality and day-to-day caregiving present a divided picture. Multiple reviewers praised one-on-one attention, noting that staff took residents on walks, helped them with personal needs, and attempted to engage them in activities. Some families described residents as well cared for and emphasized spiritual support and dignity during end-of-life situations. At the same time, other reviewers described residents left idle in common rooms, insufficient meaningful interaction among residents, and instances where a resident’s mobility aid (a lift chair) went missing. There are also reports that the facility may be geared toward managing combative Alzheimer’s patients, with medication attempts noted — a detail families should probe if their loved one has different needs.
Staff and management are recurring themes with strongly contrasting impressions. Positive accounts call staff caring and professional, but multiple negative reviews recount rude behavior from CNAs, staff refusing to answer questions, and at least one report of an owner who did not apologize or was described as untrustworthy. Management practices are characterized by some as controlling and “prison-like,” particularly around visitation and resident freedoms. A specific restrictive visitation policy — requiring 24-hour notice and limiting access to residents’ rooms or outside visits — was cited as a significant concern. There is also an accusation of discrimination against minorities in at least one review, which is an important and serious allegation that warrants verification.
Facilities and living spaces are another area of mixed feedback. Some reviewers described the homes as nice and home-like, with residents using shared common areas and the three-home layout (connected in a T) making visiting across units easier. However, negative comments point to very small rooms, rooms converted from other spaces, lack of closets, limited walking space in rooms, a noticeable urine smell in the facility, and reports that only one bathroom is available. These tangible facility issues can substantially affect resident comfort and dignity and should be checked in person.
Activities, socialization, and atmosphere show a split: some reviewers saw residents actively engaged and located in common areas, while others reported isolation of residents across separate houses, no celebrations for birthdays/holidays, and a lack of fun activities. The contrast suggests that resident experience may depend heavily on which house they are placed in or on differing staff teams. Families seeking a lively, social environment should ask specifically about typical daily schedules, activity calendars, and how the facility fosters inter-resident interaction.
Hospice, end-of-life care, and fees are notable concern areas. One or more reviews claim the facility was reluctant to permit hospice care and even charged extra for hospice services. Conversely, at least one family reported appropriate handling of end-of-life care. Given the legal, ethical, and emotional importance of hospice access and transparent billing, prospective families should obtain written policies on hospice, out-of-pocket charges, and how hospice is coordinated with facility staff.
Patterns and recommendations from these reviews: the strongest pattern is inconsistency — some residents and families have highly positive experiences, while others report critical problems around management behavior, visitation restrictions, room conditions, and care practices. This level of variation suggests uneven implementation of policies or significant differences between staff shifts or houses. Prospective residents and families should (1) verify the facility address (reviews specify 4525 Gunderson as the correct location), (2) request to tour the actual room(s) the resident would occupy rather than a model room, (3) ask for written policies on hospice, visitation, and outings, (4) inquire about staffing patterns and how the facility manages behavioral or Alzheimer’s care, and (5) speak with multiple families currently using the facility to get a broader sense of consistency. Given the serious allegations reported by some reviewers (unexpected hospice fees, refusal of hospice, limiting family access, discrimination, missing equipment), follow-up and careful, documented conversations with management are strongly advised before making placement decisions.
