Overall impression: The reviews of Lawrence Presbyterian Manor are decidedly mixed, with many reviewers praising the staff and community environment while a notable minority describe serious lapses in care and safety. Common positive themes center on compassionate, friendly caregivers, good interpersonal relationships among residents and staff, pleasant meals, chapel and social programming, and a generally welcoming atmosphere. At the same time, recurring negative themes include staffing shortages, poor communication among caregivers, delayed responses to resident needs, and specific incidents of neglect or unsafe care.
Staff and care quality: Numerous reviewers explicitly praise staff as caring, patient, compassionate, and competent; several accounts describe personalized attention, staff who "spoil" residents, and trust in the caregiving team. Hospice and end-of-life care are called out positively for maintaining dignity. However, an opposing set of reviews reports troubling care failures: residents left in soiled diapers or clothes for extended periods, soiled bathrooms (one report of feces and clothes left for three days), hearing aids without batteries even after being pointed out, edema not properly managed (not elevated as needed), and diet not following prescribed swallow-study recommendations (reports that nectar/thicker diet expectations were not consistently met and bread was omitted incorrectly). There are also reports of inconsistent nursing documentation, rarely seeing an RN, and family members wanting immediate discharge due to perceived inadequate care.
Safety and staffing: A central and repeated concern is staffing level and availability — reviewers mention that the facility is short-staffed, particularly at night, contributing to delayed call-light responses (one report of a 20-minute wait), unsafe transfers, unattended patients in rooms, and at least one fall resulting in an injured tailbone and arm. Several reviews cite poor communication and coordination between staff members and inconsistent adherence to safety precautions. These operational problems are among the most serious patterns because they have direct implications for resident safety and dignity.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Reviews about the physical facility are mixed. Many reviewers describe the facility as clean, well-maintained, with nice sized rooms and a beautiful community atmosphere; yard work and maintenance were positively mentioned. Other reviewers, however, report instances of dirtiness and neglect, including specific hygiene lapses. This split suggests inconsistency in housekeeping and personal care practices — some areas or shifts appear well-managed while others fall short.
Activities, social life, and dining: Several reviewers praise programming: fun activities, weekly chapel services, bus rides, social gatherings, and opportunities for walks in the nearby preserve. Dining receives positive comments for great meals and an enjoyable dining-room experience. Conversely, some residents and families report a lack of engagement, with residents described as sad, depressed, or angry and a perception that the facility is "typical nursing home" with limited meaningful activity for all residents. This again points to uneven delivery of programming: some residents are highly engaged and social while others feel isolated.
Staff culture and interpersonal interactions: Many comments highlight warm, compassionate, and patient staff who create a welcoming environment. Yet a subset of reviews mention staff who speak sternly or discipline residents in a way that families find upsetting. This variability indicates different staff approaches or inconsistent training/oversight in resident interaction style.
Patterns and overall assessment: The most frequent praise is for staff members who are compassionate and for the aspects of community life that foster relationships and comfort (meals, chapel, outings). The most significant concerns cluster around staffing levels, communication breakdowns, inconsistent clinical practices (documentation, follow-up on clinical issues), cleanliness lapses, and safety incidents. The coexistence of strong positive reports and serious negative incidents suggests variability by shift, unit, or specific staff — some families experience excellent care and a thriving community while others report neglect and safety risks.
Implications: For prospective families, the facility appears capable of providing excellent, compassionate care and a good quality of life in many cases, but there are documented instances of concerning neglect and safety problems that warrant careful inquiry. Families should ask about staffing ratios (especially overnight), RN coverage, protocols for call-light response, fall-prevention and safe transfer practices, how swallow-study diets and hearing aid maintenance are enforced, supervision of housekeeping and continence care, and how the facility communicates with families about incidents and care plans. For management, the reviews suggest priorities in reinforcing staffing coverage and training, improving communication/documentation practices, standardizing hygiene and continence care, and ensuring consistent activity engagement so that positive aspects are reliably experienced by all residents.
