Overall impression: The reviews paint a highly polarized picture of Heartfelt Homes. A subset of reviewers describe it as a warm, home-like facility with caring staff, homemade meals, an active and emotionally supportive environment, and a pleasant ranch/farm setting. Conversely, a distinct and serious set of reviews alleges major cleanliness, safety, care, and regulatory problems—some of which are severe enough that family members removed elders from the facility. The result is strong and conflicting sentiments: some families highly recommend the home and feel blessed by the care their loved ones received, while others label it horrific and unsafe.
Care quality and resident treatment: Positive accounts emphasize remarkable, personalized care—attentive staff, emotional support, daily activities, and a safe, stimulating environment that benefited residents. These reviewers note that residents receive individualized attention, participate in activities, and enjoy friendly interactions with staff and owners. On the negative side, multiple reports raise serious concerns about neglect: residents reportedly left in soiled diapers, developing sores, and being treated in ways family members considered abusive or unsafe. Some reviewers specifically observed or were alerted to poor treatment, and at least one family removed their loved one as a result. This extreme divergence suggests inconsistent quality of care or significant problems impacting some residents.
Staff, management, and ownership: Reviews include two very different portrayals of personnel. Several reviewers describe staff and owners as warm, involved, kind, and hands-on—preparing homemade meals, dining with residents, and actively engaging in care. However, other reviewers describe staff as horrible, inattentive, or negligent. There are also reports that management has misrepresented conditions or promised updates that were not completed. A nurse who visited confirmed a prior negative experience to one reviewer, and at least one reviewer noted red flags after an initial positive impression. Administrative and financial issues were raised as well—specifically that the facility was behind roughly $8,000 in fees and was involved in a payment dispute—adding to concerns about competent management.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Many positive reviews highlight a homey, cozy, ranch-like environment with farmland nearby, animals next door, and a rustic setting that some residents and families appreciated. Homemade meals and communal dining were frequently praised, contributing to a family-style atmosphere. In stark contrast, other reviewers describe the facility as a "dump," filthy, and unsafe, with explicit mentions of dirt and poor cleanliness. One reviewer even said they "would not send my dog there." The physical setting may vary by area of the property or over time—some residents describe daily cleaning and a cozy atmosphere, while others report horrendous conditions.
Regulatory and safety concerns: Several reviews mention significant regulatory and credentialing problems. Specific counts of violations were reported (24 Type A violations and 14 Type B violations), along with claims of expired certifications and staff not being properly credentialed. Reviewers allege the facility continued to operate despite complaints and outstanding violations. These are objective red flags that prospective families should verify independently—expired certifications, types and counts of violations, and any ongoing enforcement actions are actionable concerns and reinforce reported safety issues.
Patterns, variability, and recommendations for prospective families: The dominant pattern across these summaries is inconsistency—some residents and families have very positive experiences, while others report neglect, filth, and regulatory noncompliance. This suggests the possibility of variable care dependent on staffing, unit, timing, or management lapses. Given the mix of glowing and deeply troubling reports, prospective families should exercise caution: visit multiple times (including unannounced visits), inspect living areas for cleanliness and safety, observe staff-resident interactions, request current licensing and inspection records, ask about the specific nature and remediation of cited violations, speak with current residents and families, and clarify billing/financial standing and policies. Also consider practical factors mentioned in reviews such as commute distance and road conditions (dust on a dirt road).
Bottom line: Heartfelt Homes elicits sharply divided opinions. It appears capable of providing warm, home-like care with involved owners and quality meals for some residents, but there are multiple, serious allegations of neglect, safety hazards, cleanliness failures, expired credentials, numerous regulatory violations, and administrative/financial problems. Those positive attributes may coexist with systemic or intermittent problems that have materially harmed some residents. Families should treat both the positive testimonials and the critical complaints as important signals and undertake thorough verification before making placement decisions.
