Across the provided reviews, Westhaven Community receives predominantly positive feedback for its direct caregiving, facility quality, and family-oriented communication, though a consistent minority of reviews report serious concerns about staffing consistency, admissions handling, and isolated quality-of-care issues.
Care quality and direct staff interactions are the strongest, most frequently praised elements. Multiple reviewers highlight compassionate, loving, and attentive care, with specific mentions of prompt nursing response and comfort-focused hospice services. Several family members explicitly stated they would highly recommend Westhaven and expressed gratitude for the end-of-life and hospice support, describing it as comforting and exactly what they needed. The staff are repeatedly described as caring and responsive in many accounts, and reviewers praised the facility for being able to accommodate private rooms and for handling resident needs with attention and empathy.
Facility-related aspects are also consistently positive. Reviewers call the facility clean, modern, and well maintained. The physical environment contributes to a sense of peace for some families, with a few reviews tying that atmosphere to the community's Christian values. These attributes — cleanliness, modern building, private accommodations, and a peaceful environment — are recurring themes and reinforce the image of Westhaven as a comfortable and appropriate setting for long-term or hospice care.
Family communication and operations receive mixed but notable attention. Many reviewers praise strong family communication, prompt issue resolution, and a supportive family experience: staff who keep families informed and resolve concerns quickly. Those positive accounts indicate that when communication works well, it substantially enhances families' satisfaction and trust. However, other reviewers report significant operational problems: an admissions process characterized as disorganized, instances where promises made during admission were not kept, and situations where staff responsiveness and communication broke down. These conflicting reports suggest variability in administrative consistency — some families experienced a smooth, communicative intake and ongoing care, while others found admissions chaotic and felt misled.
Several serious concerns recur in the negative reviews and warrant attention. A number of reviewers described inconsistent or poor staff behavior — ranging from perceptions of laziness and inattentiveness to specific reports of neglect, such as bed sores. There are also mentions that some care was delegated to agency CNAs, and in at least one account this was associated with lower-quality or inconsistent care. Reports of forced showers or disregard for resident preferences indicate potential lapses in dignity-centered care or resident-centered protocols. Additionally, one or more reviewers noted a suspicious or defensive attitude from staff in situations where families raised concerns, which compounded their frustration when combined with miscommunication or unmet promises.
Overall, the aggregated sentiment is largely positive: many families strongly recommend Westhaven for its compassionate caregiving, hospice support, clean and modern facility, and effective family communication when it is working. At the same time, the negative accounts are specific and significant — they point to inconsistency in staff behavior and administrative processes that can materially affect resident safety and family trust. For prospective residents and families, the most practical takeaway is to weigh the strong, repeatedly cited positives against the isolated but meaningful negatives: ask about staffing consistency (including use of agency CNAs), wound-care and skin-inspection protocols, how resident preferences (like bathing) are handled, and request clear, documented commitments during admissions to reduce the risk of promises not being met. Doing so will help maximize the likelihood of experiencing the highly praised aspects of Westhaven while minimizing the chance of encountering the concerns some reviewers described.
