Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many family members and residents praise the facility's physical environment, social programming, dining, and compassionate staff, while a considerable number report serious and recurring care-quality concerns. The facility's strengths frequently cited include attractive, cottage-style architecture and grounds, well-planned private apartments with balconies or patios, comfortable common areas with features like a fireplace and finch exhibits, on-site gardens and gardening therapy, and restaurant-style dining. Numerous reviewers describe robust activities programming (music, meditation, exercise, games, outings), transportation options, on-campus clinical resources (physician/geriatric visits, pharmacy), and reports of attentive, caring staff—especially on day shifts and in certain units. Several families specifically praised hospice and end-of-life care, instances of excellent rehab services, and engaged administrators or managers who intervened effectively when issues were raised.
Despite these positives, a dominant and recurring theme is inconsistent and sometimes dangerously poor care, especially tied to staffing and shift disparities. Many reviews contrast a generally good day shift with a problematic night shift: night aides and sitters are frequently described as unresponsive, poorly trained, asleep on duty, on their phones, or otherwise unavailable to meet resident needs. Multiple reviewers recount delays in assistance (including failure to respond to call lights), inappropriate handling of toileting or bathing (residents left in urine or feces, bedpans substituted for hands-on help), missed or delayed medications, and missed vital follow-up after incidents. There are multiple alarming accounts of falls resulting in serious injury (including hip fractures and head injuries), infections (including catheter-related infections), and even deaths that families attribute in part to lapses in care. These safety incidents are often exacerbated by poor communication from staff and management—families describe not being told when a client was last seen, which medications were given, or being given conflicting information.
Reports about staffing, training, and leadership raise systemic concerns. Reviewers describe frequent staff turnover, inconsistent caregiver assignment (multiple different aides per resident), understaffing across shifts, and management practices perceived as unfair or dismissive of employees and families. Several accounts allege poor supervision, inadequate program management, and even falsified or forged nursing certifications and regulatory noncompliance; one reviewer noted a lack of inspections for a multi-year period. There are also repeated observations of a decline in care quality coinciding with changes in ownership or management and after COVID-era restrictions—long-time staff departures and lower census were cited as correlates of worsening performance. Some reviewers characterize the current operation as being run more like a for-profit enterprise focused on revenue than on clinical quality.
Facility condition and infection control feedback is mixed but notable: many reviewers praise cleanliness, lack of odors, newly remodeled rooms, and well-kept grounds, while others report run-down rooms, staged marketing photos that do not match reality, and sanitation issues including roaches and termites. This inconsistency suggests variability across different cottages/units or time periods. Dining is generally praised as high quality and home-style by many reviewers, though isolated reports mention cold breakfasts or poor meal service. Amenities like in-room emergency calls, 24-hour RN coverage (reported by some), and on-campus medical services are important positives but appear to be inconsistently experienced by families.
Rehabilitation and memory care receive polarized reviews: some describe outstanding rehab outcomes and staff expertise with dementia, while others state rehab and memory care were among the worst experiences, citing understaffing, inattentive aides, and dismissive staff attitudes toward cognitively impaired residents. This pattern of wide variation—excellent care for some residents and severe deficiencies for others—is a central takeaway.
Given the breadth of both positive and negative comments, the most important patterns for prospective residents and families to note are: 1) the physical environment, programming, and some clinical services can be excellent and are highly valued by many; 2) staffing consistency and night-shift performance are the most commonly reported weaknesses and are tied to the most serious safety incidents; and 3) management, ownership changes, and post-COVID operational shifts have been cited as drivers of decline by several reviewers. Families who consider St. Martin's In The Pines should weigh the appealing amenities and strong day-shift experiences against documented safety and staffing concerns. If choosing the facility, it would be prudent to confirm current staffing levels and turnover rates, ask how night coverage and sitter supervision are handled, review incident and inspection histories, and plan for frequent in-person monitoring—especially during evenings and overnight—until a consistent pattern of reliable care is confirmed.
