Overall sentiment in the pooled reviews for St. John’s Place is highly polarized, with a mixture of strongly positive firsthand accounts and equally strong negative experiences. Several families and residents report excellent care, compassionate staff, effective therapy, and smooth discharges home. Conversely, numerous reviews describe serious lapses in care quality, safety, management, and communication that raise significant red flags. This creates an unpredictable picture: some residents thrive and families are relieved, while others report neglect, dangerous conditions, or outright hostility.
Care quality and staffing emerge as the central themes with the most variability. Positive reviews highlight compassionate nurses, attentive CNAs, and therapy teams that deliver measurable improvement (for example, residents being discharged to home and regaining weight). Several specific staff members (Delicia, Katie, Lakieshia and others) and roles (social worker, DON in some cases) are praised for being proactive, available, and personally invested in residents’ wellbeing. Those accounts describe helpful housekeeping, hair and grooming services when available, and staff staying with residents until family arrival.
In stark contrast, many reviewers report neglectful or unsafe care: residents left in urine or soiled clothing, infrequent bathing, delayed pain relief, bedsores, missed specialist visits, and ER transfers attributed to substandard nursing follow-up. Multiple accounts mention an unstaffed nurses’ station, very low staffing levels, high turnover, and single-staff situations (e.g., only the DON present), which families tie directly to missed care and poor supervision. These reports indicate systemic staffing and clinical oversight problems rather than isolated interpersonal issues in many cases.
Management, transparency, and communication show a similar split. Positive narratives describe a social worker and administrative team who communicate proactively—providing discharge planning well in advance, returning calls, and even giving cell numbers for urgent contact. Negative reports describe administration that is dismissive, unreachable, or dishonest: unreturned voicemails, missing or delayed paperwork, refusal to release incident reports or camera footage, and alleged financial mismanagement. Several reviewers specifically describe being lied to at admission about room assignments or the COVID wing and note that vendors or non-care staff frequently interrupt the nursing station, suggesting disorganization.
Safety and environment concerns are among the most serious negative themes. Some reviewers report explicit unsafe conditions: sanitation failures (e.g., human waste left in toilets for days), allegations of theft of personal items and even candy, reports of smoking on night shift, and grave incidents involving police, fighting among staff, a gun on site, and people entering the building wearing masks. These incidents, if isolated, are still alarming; multiple reviewers corroborating safety issues suggest a need for immediate investigation and remediation. At the same time, other reviewers state the facility is clean, odor-free, and well-maintained, indicating inconsistent practices across shifts or units.
Dining, activities, and amenities are mixed. Several families praise a clean, spacious dining room, occasional events (backyard gatherings, ice cream service), Bible class, and live piano at lunch. The facility has on-site salon/barbershop services and rooms large enough for personal furniture, which some families appreciate. However, other reviews call out awful food, insufficient portions, unsafe food temperatures, and a lack of documented or consistent activities—some residents reportedly had no outings or engagement recorded. Personal care services like hairdressing and nail care are described as intermittent or absent in certain accounts.
A recurrent pattern is the inconsistency from shift to shift, staff to staff, and reviewer to reviewer. Where strengths are frequently cited (individual caregivers, therapy teams, a proactive social worker), they coexist with weaknesses (administration responsiveness, facility-wide safety practices, and baseline nursing care). Several reviewers explicitly describe the experience as highly dependent on which staff are on duty. Financial and ownership concerns also appear: reports of services being cut off, a family-owned structure (brothers), skepticism about owner ethics, and representations of being money-driven.
In summary, St. John’s Place elicits sharply divided experiences. Pros include genuinely compassionate and effective caregivers, strong therapy and discharge planning in many cases, and some attractive amenities (salon, activities, manageable room sizes). Cons include serious allegations of neglect, safety lapses, poor management and communication, inconsistent staffing, and documented hygiene and clinical follow-up failures. Families considering this facility should weigh the potential for excellent individualized care against reports of systemic issues; visiting different shifts, asking for staff turnover data, reviewing incident logs and documentation practices, and verifying how management addresses safety and communication complaints would be prudent steps based on the patterns in these reviews.
