Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed and polarized: many families praise Hillside Manor for clean, attractive surroundings, compassionate and professional caregivers, and engaging activities, while a substantial subset of reviews report serious and troubling lapses in care, communication, and management. Positive accounts emphasize a well-kept environment, themed décor (town-square facades), a pleasant courtyard, comfortable room options (including private rooms with baths and microwaves), and a schedule of social activities such as bingo and church services that promote resident engagement. Several reviewers explicitly state that staff treated residents like family, provided attentive emergency contact, and gave families peace of mind during difficult transitions. These testimonials describe spic-and-span cleanliness, helpful and knowledgeable staff, and flexibility and generosity from personnel during stressful times.
However, a recurring and significant theme across many negative summaries is inconsistency: while some shifts or staff members are praised as caring and attentive, others are described as unresponsive, uncaring, or poorly organized. There are multiple serious allegations of neglect — for example, residents reportedly found lying in urine and feces, substantial unexplained weight loss (50 lbs), unanswered alarms, and failures to notify families after falls. One review alleges outdoor wandering that led to a fatal accident, and others describe residents leaving the building unnoticed or staff not responding when alarms sounded. These safety-related incidents are among the most alarming patterns and contrast sharply with other reports that describe effective fall-monitoring and immediate emergency response.
Management and administrative concerns appear repeatedly. Several reviewers portray ownership and administration as money-focused and uncooperative, citing an instance of demanding payment after a resident's death and an antagonistic response to inquiries from the VA. Other administrative issues include poor record-keeping and care-tracking, inconsistent stories from staff after incidents, and a lack of follow-through on promised actions. Organizational problems also show up as difficulty locating staff upon arrival, initial confusion during onboarding for some families, unannounced maintenance visits that made relatives uncomfortable, and spotty communication that left families feeling uninformed.
Dining and activities receive mixed feedback. Many reviewers mention enjoyable events, games, church services, and daily activities that helped residents socialize and stay engaged. Several families reported no complaints about food or described meals as ideal. At the same time, others noted that the food was not good or that the facility was expensive relative to the perceived value. Overall, activities and a pleasant dining room are strengths, but dining quality and cost are inconsistent in reviewers' experiences.
Given the mix of very positive and very negative reports, the strongest pattern is variability: experiences seem to depend heavily on timing, specific staff members or shifts, and possibly management responsiveness in particular situations. Positive reviews emphasize cleanliness, caring staff, attractive facilities, and meaningful activities; negative reviews call out neglect, safety lapses, poor communication, and troubling management behavior. For prospective families, these patterns suggest the importance of in-person visits at different times of day, clear questions about staffing levels and shift coverage, reviewing incident reporting practices and recent state inspection records, and obtaining written policies about billing and procedures after a resident's death. Verifying references from current families and asking for examples of how the facility handled specific incidents (falls, wandering, emergency response) may help gauge whether the positive practices described in some reviews are consistent and systemic rather than intermittent.
