Overall impression: The reviews for Adult Care By Sandy II are strongly polarized. A substantial group of reviewers describe the home as a warm, family-like environment with compassionate staff, good home-cooked food, 24-hour attention, and meaningful activities; those families report clear improvements in their relatives' health and wellbeing and long, satisfactory stays. Conversely, another set of reviews contain very serious allegations of misrepresentation, neglect, inadequate staffing, unsanitary conditions, and safety lapses—some reporting weight loss, bedsores, overmedication or sedation, and even a resident death. The split between highly positive testimonials and severe complaints is the dominant pattern across the feedback and suggests highly inconsistent experiences among residents and families.
Care quality and staffing: Positive reviews emphasize attentive, loving care from staff who treat residents like family, provide hospice coordination when needed, and deliver individualized attention (e.g., a caregiver sleeping by a resident’s bed). Reported outcomes in these accounts include weight gain, improved mood, and satisfaction with ongoing care. However, negative reviews describe the opposite: insufficient aide presence, inadequate 24-hour care despite claims of around-the-clock supervision, neglectful behaviors (residents found soaked or on mattresses on the floor), malnourishment, bedsores from lack of repositioning, and claims of overmedication or sedation. Several reviewers explicitly state they removed relatives because of neglect. This contrast points to inconsistent staffing levels, training, or oversight; some families experienced devoted caregivers while others encountered poor attention and alleged abuse.
Facility, cleanliness, and safety: Some reviewers report a very clean, quiet facility with an open visiting policy. In stark contrast, other reviewers describe dirty conditions, soiled linens that were not changed, cluttered fire exits, and frequent noise or fighting—sometimes involving children or family members living onsite. Reports of residents left unattended or on the floor and of fire exits blocked are safety red flags. These conflicting reports make it difficult to assess the typical state of the physical environment; they do, however, underscore variability in daily operations and safety practices.
Dining and activities: Many positive reviews highlight home-cooked, tasty meals and engaging activities (including supervised outings such as a boat trip). These elements contribute to the family-like atmosphere praised by satisfied families. Negative feedback focuses less on food quality specifically and more on resident malnourishment and lack of adequate feeding/monitoring—again indicating inconsistent execution of care during meals and mealtimes.
Management, licensing, and transparency concerns: A recurring and serious theme in the negative reviews is concern about the facility’s claims and legal status. Multiple reviewers allege deceptive advertising that suggests the home is an assisted living facility when reviewers say it is not, plus assertions that the facility is not regularly inspected by the state and has no state paperwork on file. There are also questions about ownership and corporate structure (mentions of an LLC and M49 Capital), and reviewers express distrust around licensing and background information. One review notes an active LPN license in connection with the facility, which some families cited positively; however, other reviewers still raised concerns about overall licensing and oversight. These points collectively indicate the need for any prospective family to independently verify licensing, inspection status, and the legal authority under which care is provided.
Patterns and reliability of reviews: The most notable pattern is inconsistency. Several families report long-term satisfaction and positive changes in their relatives, while others experienced serious neglect shortly after placement. Because both glowing and damning reports appear with some frequency, the reviews suggest variable performance over time or between individual caregivers and shifts. Given the severity of some allegations (neglect, sedation, death, unsanitary conditions), these negative reports cannot be dismissed and should be investigated by prospective families and, where appropriate, by regulatory authorities.
What prospective families should consider: Based on the themes in these reviews, anyone considering Adult Care By Sandy II should take steps to verify claims directly rather than relying solely on testimonials. Important actions include: request and review state licensing and inspection records; ask for proof of staffing ratios and staff credentials (including active licenses); visit unannounced at different times of day to observe staffing, cleanliness, mealtimes, and interactions; speak with current residents’ families about their experiences; review contracts carefully for services and costs; confirm medication management protocols and how behavioral issues are handled; and check emergency procedures and fire safety (unobstructed exits). Because some reviewers report high monthly costs, clarify exactly what services are included.
Bottom line: Reviews present a deeply mixed picture. Many families praise the home for its warmth, food, activities, and caring staff, with several reports of measurable improvement in residents. At the same time, several reviews make serious allegations about misrepresentation, lack of oversight, neglect, unsanitary conditions, and safety hazards. The divergence in experiences suggests inconsistent quality and raises substantial concerns that warrant careful, independent verification before placement.
