Overall sentiment is mixed but centers strongly around two clear themes: high-quality, compassionate care from most staff and clinicians, contrasted with significant management and safety concerns — primarily involving the owner and an on-site dog.
Care quality and staffing receive consistently positive mentions. Multiple reviewers describe the staff and nursing team as knowledgeable, devoted, attentive, and compassionate. Families note good communication between staff, patients, and relatives, and report that staff are on-time and responsive to questions. Several comments highlight proactive practices such as arranging hospital transport when needed and the presence of clinical leadership (owners who are nurses), which reviewers associate with excellent care. The administrator and many caregivers are described as wonderful, contributing to many impressions of exemplary care, especially for short or routine stays.
The facility itself earns strong praise: reviewers repeatedly call it clean, beautiful, and well-maintained. Specific amenities cited include a spacious dining room, healthy meals, and a range of attractive amenities. Tours and impressions from visitors were frequently positive when available, and some reviewers said they were impressed and found many good things to say about the physical environment and daily living areas.
However, a recurring and serious negative theme concerns safety and management. Multiple reviewers reported an on-site dog that at times runs loose, snarls, snaps at residents and visitors, and was not disclosed prior to move-in. Descriptions include a “scary pit bull” and statements that the dog constituted a resident safety risk. Separate but related complaints involve the owner: some families describe the owner as rude and allege that the owner contacted medical providers behind their backs. These reports paint a picture of inconsistent or problematic oversight and raise legitimate safety and privacy concerns for prospective residents and their families.
Service and admissions limitations are another consistent theme. Several reviewers noted that the community requires independent bed mobility and does not accept a waiver (suggesting limited ability to serve residents with higher care needs). Others explicitly stated the facility does not provide end-of-life stays. For families seeking higher-acuity care, hospice, or more hands-on assistance, reviewers frequently concluded the community was not a good fit. A few reviews also point to logistical mismatches — some found the location unsuitable or were unable to tour before placement, and at least one family had a very brief and negative stay, leaving after only five days.
Taken together, the reviews suggest Westside Quality Care Manor can offer strong, compassionate clinical care in a clean, attractive environment when operations run smoothly, and many families have highly positive experiences. At the same time, the facility shows patterns that warrant caution: unresolved safety issues related to an on-site dog, inconsistent management behavior reported by multiple families (including concerns about owner conduct and communication with outside medical providers), and clear admission/level-of-care limitations. These factors have produced polarized experiences — some excellent and some severely negative.
Recommendations for prospective residents and families: schedule an in-person tour, ask explicitly about animal policies and any on-site pets (and whether pets are restrained or supervised), verify the facility’s admission criteria (independent bed mobility, waivers, and end-of-life care policies), and inquire about how the owner and management interact with families and outside medical providers. Also ask about staff consistency, incident reporting, and any recent changes in management or policy. These steps will help determine whether the facility’s strong clinical and physical attributes align with a particular resident’s safety needs and expectations.
