Overall sentiment: Reviews for Kivel Campus of Care are strongly mixed, with a sizable number of reviewers reporting high-quality, compassionate care, clean facilities, excellent meals and vibrant activities, while other reviews describe serious care and management failures, safety incidents, medication problems, and administrative conflicts. The most frequent positive themes are attentive, caring staff; well-maintained common areas; good food (often homemade); and active social and religious programming. The most serious negative themes are clinical safety concerns (medication errors, overmedication, falls), episodes of neglect or poor communication, and problematic owner/management behavior including disputes, attempted extra charges, and alleged evictions.
Care quality and safety: Many reviewers praise individual caregivers, nursing staff, and social-work support—several reviewers used words like "staff of heroes," named helpful staff members, and credited the community with restoring dignity and improving quality of life for residents, particularly those with dementia. Memory-care programming (including music therapy and dementia-friendly design) is repeatedly cited as a strength. However, a number of reviews describe critical care failures: incorrect medication dosing, concerns about overmedication, falls with inadequate follow-up, weight changes and loss of mobility attributed to care, and cases where residents were reportedly left alone or neglected. A few accounts describe serious deterioration requiring hospitalization and subsequent moves to other facilities. These mixed reports suggest that while care can be excellent at times, there are important and potentially serious inconsistencies in clinical safety and oversight.
Staff, leadership and culture: Many reviewers emphasize compassionate, dedicated front-line staff, quick problem resolution, and a family-like atmosphere. Specific staff and leaders received praise for responsiveness and reassurance. Conversely, several reviews recount incidents of disrespectful staff or management, including conflicts involving the owner or manager, verbal altercations, police involvement, eviction notices, and disputes over deposits and extra fees. These administrative and interpersonal issues are among the most recurrent red flags and were often the reason families recommended against the facility despite positive comments about staff or environment. Staffing stability also appears variable: some families report consistent caregivers while others report high turnover.
Facilities, rooms and grounds: Physical facilities and grounds receive mixed feedback. Positive accounts describe spacious rooms, accessible bathrooms and showers, roomy common areas, covered patios, manicured lawns with flowers and sculptures, and clean, well-kept interiors. Several reviews specifically note smaller apartments that are still pleasant and fit furniture, along with light, airy rooms. In contrast, other reviewers describe older buildings with musty or institutional smells, dim lighting, cramped apartments difficult to navigate with walkers, dry or poorly maintained lawn areas and problem areas such as a backyard with dogs. This suggests uneven upkeep across the property or differences between wings/units.
Dining and activities: Dining and social programming are often highlighted as strengths. Multiple reviewers praise delicious, homemade meals, organized communal dining, and opportunities for residents to participate in meal prep. The community offers religious observances (Shabbat and Catholic services), shopping trips, library visits and a range of activities including music therapy—particularly noted for benefiting memory-care residents. A minority of reviews find food or activities lacking or too standard, indicating variability in resident experience.
Management, policies and transparency: Several reviews raise concerns about management practices—attempted extra charges, rate increases when moving from semi-private to private rooms, limited availability of private rooms, unclear communication with families, and at least one allegation of a deposit not refunded after a requested departure. Some families described being asked to leave on short notice. Positive reviews mention prompt resolution of problems and proactive management. Given the number of comments on financial and administrative disputes, prospective residents and families should carefully review contracts, fee policies, and communication practices.
Patterns and recommendations: The reviews reveal a polarized pattern: many families are very satisfied and praise the staff, meals, activities and compassionate care—including specific praise for memory-care programs—while a smaller but significant group report serious safety, clinical, and administrative problems. The variability appears to be across time, units, or shifts rather than uniformly distributed. Key areas of concern raised repeatedly are medication safety, fall prevention and post-fall care, owner/management conflicts, and consistency of staffing. Key strengths are compassionate caregivers, strong social programming, and well-regarded dining and housekeeping.
Conclusion: Kivel Campus of Care demonstrates clear strengths—particularly in staff compassion, housekeeping, social programming, and dining—but also shows important and recurring weaknesses involving clinical safety, management transparency, and consistency of care. The mixed nature of the reviews means families should weigh both the frequent positive testimonials and the serious negative incidents. When considering this facility, families would likely benefit from in-person tours focused on observing staff-resident interactions, asking detailed questions about medication administration and fall protocols, clarifying billing and eviction policies, checking references from current families, and touring the specific unit under consideration rather than relying solely on general impressions.
