Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed, with a pattern of sharp contrasts between pockets of excellent, compassionate care and multiple reports of serious safety, sanitation, administration, and consistency problems. Many reviewers praised individual staff members — nurses, aides, an attentive physician, and hospice teams — describing them as caring, professional, and family-oriented. Several accounts describe successful recoveries and effective support from night and weekend nurses. The activities director received standout positive mention for programming and engagement, although that person later left for another facility (Wingate), which reviewers noted as a loss.
However, the negative reports include recurrent and significant concerns about basic patient safety and clinical care. Reviews cite infections (including pneumonia), infection relapses, additional surgeries required because of care failures, medication errors or medications not being administered as prescribed, and skipped wound care. There are multiple allegations of residents being dropped or falling from wheelchairs and sustaining injuries. These clinical failures collectively indicate inconsistent adherence to care plans and potential lapses in clinical oversight.
Sanitation and the physical environment are inconsistent across reports. Some families explicitly described the facility as clean and safe, while others reported dirty curtains, holes in walls, and instances of soiled conditions — including a roommate with leaking leg sores smearing fluid on the floor. Reviewers also flagged interior aging and the need for updates in common areas and rooms. Dining evaluations are similarly mixed: while some meals are acceptable, reviewers asked for more variety, crisper vegetables, and better vegetarian options, with specific mention that vegetarian meals were insufficient on several occasions.
Staffing and operational issues are a recurring theme. Multiple reviewers call out understaffing and erratic physical therapy scheduling. Supply shortages and descriptions of an underfunded facility are linked to failures such as not having meds on hand. Several reviews report unacceptable staff behaviors — nurses yelling at residents or publicly berating them — and instances where staff failed to follow physician orders for rehab. Administrative and financial problems were also described: unprofessional financial staff, last-minute co-pay surprises, promises not kept, and general dishonesty or unhelpfulness from management. Discharge coordination failures (no pillow provided, no help with transportation) added to family distress in some cases.
Taken together, these reviews indicate a facility with capable and compassionate frontline caregivers but with systemic problems in consistency, leadership, resourcing, and infection control. The most serious and recurrent issues — medication and wound-care failures, infections and hospitalizations, falls and safety incidents, and administrative dishonesty — represent potential risks to resident health and family trust. Prospective families should weigh the strong positive reports about individual staff and hospice care against the frequency and severity of the negative reports. Because experiences appear highly inconsistent (some residents received exceptional care while others experienced dangerous lapses), it would be prudent for anyone considering Thompson House to ask specific, up-to-date questions about staffing levels, infection-control protocols, wound-care procedures, medication administration and storage, recent survey/inspection results, and current management/financial policies before making placement decisions.
