Overall impression: Reviews for St. Ann's Home are strongly mixed, with a clear pattern: direct-care staff (nurses and aides) receive considerable praise for compassion, attentiveness, and clinical skill, while management and systemic issues generate the bulk of serious complaints. Many families describe a clean, recently renovated facility with private bathrooms, a convenient layout, active programming, and a warm, family-like atmosphere. Conversely, recurring reports of short staffing, managerial unresponsiveness or unethical behavior, medication mistakes, and isolated but serious allegations (abuse, privacy violations, financial control leading to discharge) create substantial concerns that temper otherwise positive experiences.
Care quality and safety: Direct-care teams are often highlighted as the facility's strength — nurses and aides are described as loving, caring, and diligent, and multiple families credited staff with good end-of-life care and hospice coordination. However, safety and medical-management problems appear repeatedly: medication administration errors (missed antibiotic eye drops, side effects like diarrhea tied to constipation meds), missed care tasks (baths skipped), falls attributed to short staffing, and reports of choking spells and inadequate follow-up after procedures. Several reviews said families needed to be highly involved and vigilant to ensure proper care. These patterns suggest variability in clinical reliability that may depend on shift, unit, or oversight.
Staffing, communication, and family experience: Short staffing is a dominant negative theme—affecting nursing coverage in assisted living, kitchen staffing, supervision, and timeliness of care. Communication experiences are mixed: some families praised prompt, informative communication and proactive staff who flag red flags; others reported being blocked from contacting residents, denied information, or encountering unresponsive phone lines and a rude receptionist. One review specifically called out an unprofessional social worker. The contrast indicates inconsistent staff training or enforcement of family-communication policies and a potential disconnect between frontline staff and administrative leadership.
Facility, dining, and programming: Many reviewers find the facility clean, modern, well-maintained, and comfortable. Renovations, private bathrooms, and proximity to dining areas were noted positively. Activities and a lively atmosphere were reported by numerous families, and several appreciated spiritual support and the non-profit mission. Dining opinions were split: multiple reviews praised good food with variety and improvements in health, while others described poorly prepared meals and an understaffed kitchen. COVID-era policies affected some experiences (activity halts, window visits allowed), and one review mentioned a pest sighting (roach in nurses' station), which is an isolated but notable complaint.
Management, cost, and policy concerns: Upper management is a recurrent source of negative feedback—described in multiple reviews as horrible, unethical, money-driven, or mandate-driven. Serious allegations include alleged abuse (one claim of a resident being thrown), privacy violations, financial control issues (a son controlling funds and a report of eviction after life savings were taken), and admissions being denied by nursing leadership. Cost is another frequent concern: the facility is described as very expensive, with one figure cited (~$300k). Additionally, placement limitations (memory care full, no male placement available) and small rooms lacking amenities (no fridge) were mentioned as practical drawbacks.
Patterns and takeaways: The dominant pattern is a facility with strong frontline caregivers and a pleasant physical environment undermined at times by staffing shortages, inconsistent clinical oversight, and problematic management/administration. Positive experiences often emphasize the hands-on staff, cleanliness, and emotional support, while negative experiences center on safety, medication management, communication blocks, and financial/administrative issues. For prospective families, these reviews suggest the importance of asking targeted questions about current staffing levels (especially on off shifts), medication administration and auditing procedures, incident reporting and resolution, visitation and family-communication policies, memory-care availability and admission criteria, pest-control practices, and detailed fee/contract terms. Visiting the facility multiple times, meeting nursing leadership, and speaking with families of current residents may help assess whether the strengths (caring direct-care staff, good environment) outweigh the risks raised by the systemic and management concerns documented in these reviews.
