Overall sentiment across the reviews for Ramsey Village Continuing Care is strongly mixed, with a heavy concentration of praise for front‑line caregivers, dining, continuity of care, and certain facility features, but also a significant number of serious complaints about neglect, inconsistent management, maintenance problems, and item misplacement. Many reviewers describe deeply positive experiences — citing caring, compassionate staff; long‑tenured employees; good communication from specific staff and administrators; strong therapy and rehab services; and a true continuum of care that allows residents to move from independent living to memory or skilled nursing as needs change. Multiple positive accounts highlight homemade meals, active programming (movies, bingo, live entertainment), a hotel‑like lobby and updated common areas, on‑site services (salon, laundry, nail care), and a safe, wooded campus with wildlife. Several individual staff members (Mallory, Laura Coco and others) are repeatedly singled out for exceptional performance, and families report peace of mind, strong hospice support, and clear medical communication in many cases.
Care quality and staffing form the clearest dividing line in the reviews. On one hand, many families report compassionate, attentive nurses and CNAs who provide emotional and physical care, assist with showers and dining, and help residents settle in. Reports of effective physical therapy and successful rehab stays are common, with reviewers praising therapists and recovery outcomes. On the other hand, there are numerous, specific allegations of neglect: long delays responding to call lights (20+ minutes), infrequent bathing, residents found dirty or in soiled diapers, unkept bathrooms, bedsores, and even accounts of CNAs napping on duty or nurses arguing. These negative incidents are serious and were sometimes accompanied by formal complaints to state agencies and the BBB. The juxtaposition of glowing front‑line praise with extreme neglect reports suggests inconsistent practices across shifts, units, or staff teams rather than uniformly poor or uniformly excellent care.
Facility condition and amenities also elicit polarized reactions. Many reviewers describe a pristine exterior, newly renovated common areas, bright dining rooms, and some updated independent living apartments with high‑end finishes. The campus offers multiple dining rooms, activity spaces, exercise equipment, and a generally hotel‑like atmosphere that many find appealing. Conversely, others note the building’s age (1930s origins referenced), small rooms with poor natural light, areas showing paint wear, mold in apartments, strong odors, and problems with temperature control (units reported as too hot or too cold). Housekeeping and cleanliness descriptions range from “very clean” and “daily bathroom cleaning” to accounts of filthy rooms and misplaced/stolen personal items (glasses, hearing aids, dentures, rings). These conflicting descriptions again point to variability: some wings or renovated units appear well cared for while other parts of the facility suffer from maintenance lapses.
Dining and activities are frequently praised but not universally available in the same way. Many reviewers celebrate the food — homemade meals, generous portions, roast chicken called out by name — and enjoy themed dining events, movie nights, and visiting entertainers. Activity calendars, outings, and social programs are described as robust in several accounts. Yet other reviewers, especially from independent living, say they “did not see any activities,” or that activities are less frequent than expected (sometimes blamed on COVID restrictions). Some praise separate dining areas and festive atmospheres, while others find dining rooms small or the independent living dining area insufficient. The takeaway is that dining quality appears consistently strong, but the availability and frequency of activities can vary by unit and over time.
Management, admissions, and administrative communication receive mixed marks. Numerous families report excellent communication, proactive family updates, and administrators who respond promptly to concerns — with specific appreciation for individualized attention during transitions and end‑of‑life care. However, several reviewers recount poor management handling of serious incidents, inaccurate pricing information during tours, solicited or biased reviews concerns, front desk phone system problems, and unresolved complaints that led to state filings. Those negative accounts include conflicting explanations about missing items, failure to address environmental complaints (temperature, mold), and even allegations of systemic problems reported by former staff. This split suggests that management performance may be uneven or changing over time, with some leaders and teams performing well and others falling short.
Cost, location, and other practical considerations are similarly mixed. Multiple reviewers call Ramsey expensive — “the most expensive” in some comments — while others note upfront or reasonable pricing and all‑inclusive options. A price around $2,400/month was mentioned in one review as a reference point. The campus is described as wooded, attractive, and pet‑friendly with wildlife, but proximity to Drake University results in heavy traffic for some, and a few reviewers mentioned an unattractive or rough neighborhood near the property. Security features (locked doors, secure entry codes) are appreciated by many families.
Notable patterns and key takeaways: (1) Staff quality is the single most important and most inconsistent theme — many accounts of exceptional caregivers coexist with serious allegations of neglect and misconduct. (2) Facility condition appears to vary by unit: some renovated apartments and common areas are excellent while other rooms show age, poor lighting, or maintenance issues. (3) Dining and rehabilitation services are frequently praised and are some of Ramsey’s strengths. (4) Management and administrative responsiveness is uneven, with both highly positive reports and documented complaints. (5) Personal‑item security and inventory/documentation practices have been questioned in multiple reviews and should be probed by prospective families.
For prospective residents and families reviewing Ramsey Village, the reviews suggest strong potential benefits — particularly excellent caregiving teams, good meals, and a true continuum of care — but also signal the need for careful, specific vetting. If considering Ramsey, visitors should (a) tour the exact unit and wing being offered (to evaluate natural light, room size, and cleanliness), (b) ask about call‑light response times and staffing ratios for the specific level of care, (c) request references for recent rehab or memory‑care discharges, (d) clarify pricing and any additional fees in writing, and (e) inquire about protocols for personal items, infection control, and incident documentation. The aggregate of reviews portrays a community capable of excellent, family‑centered care but with notable variability and some serious negative incidents that warrant thorough, personalized assessment before placement.
