Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many reviewers strongly praise the frontline staff (nurses, CNAs, therapists, and activity staff) while multiple other reviewers report serious operational problems that have directly harmed residents or their families. A consistent positive theme is that individual caregivers are frequently described as compassionate, professional, and committed. Several reviews single out strong memory care leadership, excellent rehab/physical therapy, a welcoming admissions team, and long-term residents who have had good experiences. When staffing and resources align, reviewers report attentive, collaborative care, clean rooms, engaging activities, and a respectful community atmosphere.
However, the most prominent negative theme is chronic understaffing and its downstream effects. Numerous reviews cite skeleton crews, limited night nurses, unanswered call lights, and phones going unanswered. These staffing shortages are linked in reviews to concrete episodes of neglect: falls that may not have had proper fall precautions, residents left soiled or in wet beds for extended periods, delayed responses to medical needs, and conflicting or confusing incident reporting. Multiple reviewers described transfers to the ER or further hospitalization after incidents at the facility. Several reviewers urged regulatory scrutiny and raised concerns that poor practices could risk staff licensure.
Safety and security concerns appear repeatedly. Beyond falls and delayed care, reviewers report theft or missing items (wallets, TVs, clothing, phones), frequent fire alarms, and uncomfortable or unsafe room conditions (extreme room temperature, small/shared rooms, lack of equipment). A few reviews describe very serious outcomes attributed to neglect, including one report asserting neglect that led to amputation. These are serious allegations that contrast sharply with the positive accounts and indicate significant variability in resident outcomes.
Dining and dietary management are another area of mixed feedback. Multiple reviewers call out poor food quality, with descriptors like "inedible" and "starch-heavy"; at least one reviewer experienced difficulties getting appropriate dietary accommodations for complex needs (gastric bypass, diabetes). Yet some reviewers found the food decent and the dietary staff competent. Discrepancies in food quality and responsiveness to dietary restrictions appear to be a recurring but inconsistent issue.
Management and operational improvements are mentioned in several reviews—owners and administrators are credited in some accounts with hiring additional staff, addressing concerns, and making positive changes. Admissions staff and certain administrators receive specific praise for professionalism and helpfulness. Nevertheless, other reviewers report poor communication from management, conflicting explanations about incidents, and policy frustrations (for example, restrictions on bringing outside drinks), suggesting that improvements are uneven and progress may be inconsistent across units or shifts.
In summary, the Greens at Hendersonville appears to have a deeply divided reputation: many families and residents praise individual staff members and certain programs (notably memory care and rehab), while others report serious quality and safety lapses tied largely to staffing and operational issues. If considering this facility, families should seek concrete, up-to-date information about staffing ratios (especially nights), fall-prevention protocols, incident reporting practices, security measures for residents’ belongings, dietary accommodations, and recent regulatory findings or corrective actions. The pattern in these reviews suggests strong caregiving potential hampered at times by systemic resource and management problems—resulting in excellent experiences for some residents and troubling, even severe, outcomes for others.
