Overall sentiment for Avista Senior Living North Mountain is sharply mixed: a large number of reviews describe a caring, family-like community with many compassionate staff members, attractive apartment-style living, robust activities, and a clean, homey environment — while a significant minority of reviews describe serious problems including pest infestations, unsanitary conditions, staffing shortages, medication errors, neglect, and troubling management responses. These two narratives recur throughout the reviews, producing a polarized portrait in which many residents and families are very satisfied, yet others report issues that raise safety and regulatory concerns.
Staff and care quality: One of the strongest and most consistent positive themes is praise for individual caregivers and certain members of leadership. Many reviews name specific staff who are described as kind, attentive, and compassionate; families report personalized attention, fast responses (in some cases), thoughtful communication (texts, photos, FaceTime), and staff who know residents by name. The memory-care unit receives particular accolades for being bright, safe, and providing 24/7 attentive care. Conversely, multiple reviews report chronic understaffing, slow or ignored call lights, missed or incorrect medication administration, soiled clothing, unwashed residents, and missed meals. There are multiple allegations of falls or injuries where families say staff response was delayed or absent. These contrasting reports suggest variability by shift, floor, or time period: some residents regularly receive excellent, person-centered care, while others experience lapses that materially affect health and dignity.
Facilities, cleanliness, and pest control: Reviews on physical conditions and cleanliness are highly inconsistent. Many reviewers describe clean common areas, updated apartments, pleasant dining rooms, and well-maintained grounds. Yet there are numerous, specific and severe allegations of pest infestations — repeated reports of roaches (including extremely graphic accounts), bed bugs, and prolonged fruit fly infestations — and claims of unsanitary kitchens and food-preparation practices (cooks without gloves, dead roaches, flies on walls and food). Additional sanitation concerns include pervasive urine and feces odors in some units or hallways, filthy toilets, and rooms reported as unclean or stained. These are not isolated murmurs but repeated, detailed allegations that several reviewers say persisted despite complaints; such reports indicate potential systemic problems with infection control and pest management in certain parts of the campus.
Dining and nutrition: Opinions about dining vary. Many families praise generous portions, enjoyable meals and desserts, and a restaurant-style dining experience. Several positive reviews highlight delicious food, family-style seating, and special events like buffet Thanksgiving meals. In contrast, other reviewers describe delayed service, old or unappetizing items (e.g., dry ham sandwiches), deceptive service practices, and staff directing residents to seek food in the cafeteria because caregivers would not assist. A few reviews specifically raise unsafe food-handling concerns and kitchen cleanliness issues that have direct implications for resident health.
Clinical management, medication, and safety: Several reviews report medication mishandling, missing medications, blood sugar mismanagement, unmonitored psychotropic medication changes, and failure to notify families of medication adjustments. There are also allegations of staff disobeying doctor orders and not honoring power-of-attorney instructions. Clinical concerns extend to claims of unlicensed staff performing clinical duties, inadequate dementia-tailored care for some residents, and pressure tactics (e.g., pay more for faster service). Combined with reports of unattended falls and delayed emergency responses, these issues raise red flags about the consistency of clinical governance, training, and supervision.
Management, communication, and responsiveness: Leadership receives polarized feedback. Multiple reviews commend specific managers, directors, and staff (several names cited), describing responsive leadership who resolve move-in issues, support families, and improve care. However, another strong thread of reviews accuses management of poor communication, ignoring complaints, retaliatory behavior (eviction after pest treatment), and minimizing or
