Overall sentiment across the reviews for Quality Life Services - Westmont is highly mixed and polarized: many families and residents report compassionate, attentive care and an active community, while an appreciable number describe serious lapses in clinical care, cleanliness, communication and safety. The most common positive themes are kind, patient staff members who form strong bonds with residents, a modern or well-kept building in some areas, and a robust activity program that includes bingo, outings and field trips. Several reviewers specifically praised timely medical attention and named clinicians who provided excellent care. Other reviewers emphasize reliable cleaning staff and above-average meals or staff willingness to heat residents’ food when needed.
Care quality and clinical safety are the areas with the sharpest divergence. Positive reports describe attentive nurses, compassionate caregiving, and prompt medical responses. Conversely, multiple reviewers described neglectful incidents: missed medical tasks (including alleged failure to clean feeding tubes), diaper shortages that led to accidents, delays of 30 minutes or more when residents needed assistance, and then serious outcomes such as infections and hospitalizations for sepsis. There are also allegations of incorrect discharge paperwork, suspected fudging of patient information, and one review that described a home-health nurse prognosing only days to live before hospice involvement. These clinical and documentation concerns are serious and were repeatedly raised by families who advise others not to send loved ones here.
Staff behavior, shift-to-shift consistency, and communication appear to be uneven. Many reviewers praise friendly, respectful, and helpful employees who listen to families and treat residents like family. At the same time, other reviewers report a toxic work environment among staff, ill-mannered nurses using crude nicknames, laughter at patients, staff that hide mistakes, and poor inter-shift communication (including failure to leave notes). Several complaints point to management being dismissive when issues are raised and an administrative focus on billing and insurance updates—administration was described as quick to bill and update insurance, which some families perceived negatively.
Cleanliness and hygiene are similarly inconsistent across reviews. Some families found the facility clean overall and modern-looking, while others reported unsanitary conditions: musty or urine odors, clothes smelling of urine and feces, soiled toilets not promptly cleaned, rooms not cleaned when soiled, and general chaotic rooms. Laundry and personal care issues were specifically called out. These cleanliness problems are linked in several reviews to actual health consequences (infections, hospitalizations) and thus are a major concern when assessing the community.
Dining and daily life produce varied feedback. Several reviewers praised warm, good food and staff who will heat frozen options. Others described food as cold, poor in quality, or inconsistent. Activity programming is a relative strength: many reviewers noted weekly bingo, outings, day trips, and a lively activity schedule. Still, some residents did not participate, and reviewers noted downtime where families felt supplemental activities or items (puzzles, personal supplies) were needed. Facility layout and amenities also drew mixed remarks: a one-floor building and an accessible layout were appreciated by some, while others described cramped rooms, full capacity, and problematic roommate pairings that limited privacy or interaction.
Safety, policy, and administrative concerns were raised multiple times. A few reviewers reported that residents experienced restricted egress (being locked inside), unsafe keypad/lock practices, or staff not helping residents exit—issues that families considered troubling. Additional administrative issues include incorrect discharge paperwork and perceived hurried billing practices. One reviewer alleged the organization has an anti-vaccination stance that could increase risk to residents; this is a serious claim reported in the reviews and should be investigated further by prospective families.
In summary, reviews of Westmont reflect a facility with notable strengths — caring and bonded staff, active programming, a generally modern appearance, and positive reports of medical responsiveness — but also substantial and recurring concerns about cleanliness, clinical consistency, communication failures, staff culture, and safety protocols. The variability appears to be unit- or shift-dependent: some family members report excellent experiences, while others describe neglectful care with dangerous outcomes. Prospective residents and families should weigh these polarized reports carefully, visit the facility across multiple times/shifts, ask targeted questions about staffing levels, infection control, documentation practices, roommate assignments, call response times, and administrative billing policies, and seek written assurances or observations about cleanliness and clinical procedures before deciding.
