The reviews for Young At Heart I are highly mixed, revealing a facility that elicits strong positive experiences from some families and serious concerns from others. On the positive side, multiple reviewers describe staff as warm, professional and informative, and cite a family-like, non-institutional atmosphere that provides personalized, reassuring care. Several comments highlight practical advantages such as a one-level layout, spacious rooms, a clean and up-to-date interior, ample outdoor acreage and a deck, and the presence of two homes on one property with two kitchens. Medical support is mentioned positively in some reviews: trained nurses are on staff and doctor visits are noted, and one review explicitly says the facility provided outstanding support and peace of mind during difficult times (including during the height of COVID-19). A variety of payment options is also reported, which can be important for prospective residents and their families.
Conversely, a significant number of reviews raise red flags about care consistency and management. Multiple reviewers report serious lapses: medication mishandling, the development of bedsores, missed physician visits, and basic service failures such as no hot water or meals not matching the expected/state menu. There are also repeated complaints about poor communication and disengaged or unprofessional staff. Some accounts describe distressing scenes during visits or tours—no one answering the door, no staff present, elderly residents left sitting on a couch unattended, and tours described as "BAD." One reviewer noted a nurse who could not speak English, pointing to potential communication barriers that could affect care. Several reviewers explicitly say they would not recommend the facility.
Taken together, the feedback suggests a polarized pattern: some families report excellent, attentive, home-like care and strong support, while others experienced neglect and operational problems that could have serious clinical consequences. The presence of both trained nurses and documented medical visits alongside reports of missed care and medication errors suggests inconsistency in execution—possibly due to variable staffing, supervision, or management practices. Comments about construction and disruption are mixed; while the physical environment is usually described as spacious and up-to-date, ongoing construction could explain intermittent service problems noted by some visitors.
For prospective residents and families evaluating Young At Heart I, the reviews point to several specific areas to investigate further in person. During a visit, observe staff-resident interactions, check whether staff answer the door promptly, and ask for documentation about medication management, wound care protocols, staff training, and language capabilities. Confirm how physician visits are scheduled and documented, inspect meal planning and compliance with state menu requirements, and inquire about recent incidents (e.g., bedsores, missed meds) and corrective actions taken. If construction is ongoing, ask how the facility is mitigating disruption and ensuring continuity of care.
In summary, Young At Heart I appears to offer many features families value—home-like setting, outdoor space, accessible layout, and some strong staff and clinical supports—but the facility also shows notable variability in care and operations that have produced serious negative experiences for some residents. Decision-makers should weigh the positive testimonials against the negative reports, conduct a thorough, unannounced visit if possible, and obtain current references and regulatory/licensing information before committing. This approach will help determine whether the facility’s strengths are consistent and whether the management has addressed the problems cited by dissatisfied families.
