Overall sentiment across the review summaries is mixed but leans toward concerning. There are multiple accounts praising individual staff members, rehab therapy, and specific services; however, those positives are repeatedly overshadowed by recurring, serious complaints about care quality, staffing, cleanliness, management, and safety. The reviews indicate a polarized experience where some families encountered attentive, competent employees and active programming, while others experienced neglectful care and operational failures.
Care quality and resident safety: Reviews present a stark contrast. Several reviewers explicitly praised nurses, aides, and therapy staff for good care, and some noted successful rehabilitation outcomes. At the same time, a significant number of reports allege neglect — residents left in urine or stool, not regularly turned, development of bedsores, delayed hospital transfers, and at least one reviewer linking a medication given to a resident with subsequent death. There are also reports of untrained or distracted staff (cell phone use during care) and delays in responding to breathing difficulties. These recurring safety-related allegations are among the most serious themes and warrant careful scrutiny by anyone considering the facility.
Staffing, attitude, and consistency: Staff descriptions are highly inconsistent. Multiple reviewers single out compassionate, helpful employees (including two named staff, Adrienne and Mckenzie) and mention long-tenured, cohesive teams. Conversely, many reviews describe short-staffing, rude or apathetic caregivers, nurses with poor attitudes, and a general lackadaisical approach to residents’ needs. Several reviewers report that weekends and holidays feel like a "ghost town," implying reduced staffing and activity during those times. The pattern suggests that quality of care may vary greatly by shift, team, or individual — producing both positive and negative experiences within the same facility.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Facilities impressions also vary. Some reviewers commented on large, nice rooms and a clean dining room, while numerous others reported dirty floors, persistent unpleasant odors, water damage, dark hallways, and rooms left disheveled. Furniture problems are repeatedly mentioned: broken beds, drawers falling off, and furniture described as "curb furniture," with promises to replace items going unfulfilled for many months. Elevator availability and reliability are also problematic in reports — only one small elevator serves three floors, it has broken down, and a second elevator is reportedly available only at mealtimes in some accounts. These maintenance and cleanliness issues contribute to safety, dignity, and comfort concerns for residents.
Dining and activities: Reviews about food and programming are split. On the positive side, several reviews list active social programming — bingo, movie nights, crochet classes, birthday parties, and Friday ice cream — and some reviewers call the facility’s programming "amazing." Conversely, many reviewers strongly criticized the cuisine (described as "horrendous," "unrecognizable," and poor nutrition), and several said staff would not assist residents at mealtimes. There are also direct statements that no activities or therapy were provided for some residents, indicating inconsistent delivery of scheduled programs and therapeutic services.
Management, communication, and accountability: Management is a frequent area of complaint. Reviews allege unprofessional behavior, lies, poor organization, calls not returned, and a lack of accountability. Reports of alleged theft of valuables and poor handling of quarantine or infection-control periods indicate potential systemic issues in administration and policy enforcement. Some reviews explicitly call for new management. Conversely, a smaller subset of reviews describes clear communication and friendly explanations from staff, underscoring the variability in experiences.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The most prominent pattern is inconsistency. Positive comments about caring staff, good therapy, and active programs exist alongside repeated reports of neglect, poor hygiene, management failures, and safety risks. The frequency and severity of the negative reports (neglect, bedsores, delayed transfers, alleged death, alleged theft) are serious red flags that prospective residents and families should investigate further.
If you are considering Shaker Gardens, the reviews suggest several practical steps: tour the facility multiple times, including weekends and mealtimes; ask directly about staffing levels, the facility’s turnover rates, and how they cover weekends and nights; request incident reports, staffing ratios, and documentation about staff training; observe cleanliness, smells, and room/furniture conditions in person; ask to see menus and observe a mealtime to determine whether residents receive appropriate assistance; inquire about elevator reliability and emergency procedures; and request references from current families. Also ask how management handles complaints, asset security, and transfers to higher levels of care. Given the reported variability, direct, thorough checks and references will be essential to form an accurate picture of current conditions.