Overall sentiment in the reviews for Church of God Home is strongly mixed. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility for warm, compassionate caregivers, a clean and welcoming environment, robust activity programming, and palatable meals often delivered to residents’ rooms. Several reviews highlight exceptional experiences with rehabilitation services, attentive aides (some named specifically), strong end-of-life support, and a family-like atmosphere that welcomes visitors. Multiple accounts describe the facility as tidy and nicely decorated, sometimes beautifully so for holidays, and note flexible room options with private bathrooms and basic furnishings.
However, there is a persistent and serious countercurrent of complaints describing large lapses in care quality and safety. Numerous reviews allege neglect (including feeding neglect and residents left in fecal/urine-soiled conditions), delayed responses to critical health events, and instances where families felt staff did not follow care requests or medical wishes. Some reports are severe: bed bugs, dirty bedding and clothes, unexplained bruising, falls attributed to mishandling of clothing, delayed hospital transfers, and at least one report of a resident dying after alleged poor care. These are not isolated minor gripes — several reviews explicitly describe unprofessional behavior, potential elder abuse, and recommend avoiding the facility entirely.
Staffing and management emerge as a primary theme that explains much of the variability. Many reviewers praise individual staff members and describe a welcoming, attentive caregiving team that knows residents’ names and preferences. Yet other reviewers report short-staffing, unresponsive or arrogant personnel, unhelpful leadership (including unresponsive Directors of Nursing), and morale/pay issues among employees. Some reviewers perceive a shift after corporate or administrative changes, suggesting that management decisions and resource allocation play a role in declining care in certain units or shifts. Families also frequently report poor communication practices — difficulty reaching nurses, requirements to schedule visits, lack of upfront clarity about emergency assistance policies (for example, staff not allowed to lift residents), and decisions like transferring a resident against family wishes or sending patients for out-of-network testing.
Facilities and maintenance receive mixed marks. Many visitors and residents call the building clean, welcoming and nicely decorated, and praise the dining room appearance and apartment comforts. Conversely, some reviews describe an older building with small rooms, worn carpets, a dirty aquarium, and occasional pest issues. Dining and nutrition also split opinions: multiple reviewers highlight hot, fresh food and flexibility with room delivery, while others complain of cold, overcooked meals and insufficient feeding assistance leading to serious neglect concerns. Activities and social programming are generally a consistent positive — reviewers list a wide range of offerings from religious services and bingo to crafts, classes, and outings — but administrative requirements for visits and scheduling sometimes complicate family involvement.
Safety and clinical concerns are the most consequential pattern in the negative reviews. Allegations of delayed emergency responses, insufficient monitoring leading to unresponsiveness, and contested transfers to hospitals (including out-of-network x-rays) raise red flags that families should not ignore. While many reviewers describe compassionate end-of-life care and supportive staff in those circumstances, the coexistence of severe neglect allegations means the facility’s performance may vary significantly by unit, shift, or time period.
In sum, Church of God Home elicits strong praise for individualized compassionate care, cleanliness, active programming, and good rehabilitation services from many families and residents. At the same time, a notable subset of reviews documents troubling safety and management issues: inconsistent staffing and oversight, allegations of neglect and abuse, poor communication, and maintenance lapses. These mixed patterns suggest the experience can differ dramatically depending on which staff and units a resident encounters. Prospective residents and their families should conduct close, targeted due diligence: tour multiple parts of the facility at different times of day, observe mealtimes and medication/assistance routines, ask for staffing ratios and recent inspection/complaint records, get written clarification of emergency-assistance and transfer policies, speak with current families about consistency of care across shifts, and verify how management addresses incidents and staff training. This careful vetting can help weigh the facility’s many strengths against the potentially severe risks reported by other families.
