Overall impression: Reviews of The Columbia Presbyterian Community are sharply mixed. A large number of reviewers praise the campus, amenities, and many staff members; others report serious care and safety failures. Positive comments emphasize a beautiful campus on the Saluda River, attractive dining and common areas, robust activity programming, on‑site therapy and a fitness center, and warm, professional staff — particularly in admissions and certain assisted‑living/memory‑care units. Negative reports are not merely minor complaints but include multiple, serious allegations of neglect, inconsistent staffing, slow call‑light responses, medication and medical‑follow up errors, and mishandled resident belongings. The result is a polarized set of experiences that appear to vary by unit, shift, and the acuity of resident needs.
Staff and care quality: The most frequently recurring theme is the contrast between staff who are described as knowledgeable, compassionate, and attentive and instances where staff are portrayed as lazy, inattentive, or inconsistent. Many reviewers explicitly praise caregivers, nurses, and administrative personnel (even naming positive admissions experiences), and note low turnover and an apparent family‑oriented culture in some parts of the campus. At the same time, several reviewers recount serious lapses: residents allegedly left unattended in wheelchairs or beds for long periods, delayed assistance to call lights, refusal of fluids, improper pain management, and medication errors. Multiple accounts describe bedsores, falls, and even unsafe discharges. These are not isolated minor service gaps but safety‑critical incidents that some families said required their direct intervention. Several reviewers therefore warn that care quality can be highly variable and that the community may not be appropriate for residents with higher medical or rehabilitative needs.
Safety, medical follow‑up and therapy: Safety and medical follow‑up concerns are among the strongest negative themes. Reports include refusals to obtain timely diagnostic testing (an example cited: no MRI while a resident was on blood thinners), inconsistent nursing presence, and claims of inadequate pain control. Some reviewers described therapy and rehab as helpful (on‑site PT and exercise programs are available), while others called therapy a “joke” or said the community was not suitable for rehabilitation or for residents with degenerative conditions. Memory care and certain assisted‑living wings received several positive mentions for being safe and thriving, suggesting that the quality and oversight may differ by care level or team.
Facilities, apartments and amenities: The physical campus receives strong positive feedback: attractive dining rooms, walking paths to the river, well‑kept grounds, and pleasant common areas including a gym, salon, and chapel services. Independent‑living offerings include spacious two‑bedroom apartments for some residents, while other reviewers found units small or limiting (e.g., single rooms instead of apartments, or semi‑private rooms). Cleanliness is reported as excellent by many families, though a few reviewers accuse the community of unsanitary conditions and poor housekeeping in specific instances. Overall, many reviewers consider the facility beautiful and hotel‑like, but some note dated areas that could use updates.
Dining and activities: Many reviewers praise the dining area and listable menu options; there are recurring mentions of organized programming — movie nights, card games, arts and crafts, outings and church services — which contribute to social and spiritual wellbeing. Conversely, some reviewers reported cold or flavorless meals and a perception that food quality is hit‑or‑miss. The availability of regular activities and community outings is consistently cited as a strength.
Administration, communication and cost: Administration and admissions receive both praise and criticism. Several reviewers singled out responsive, professional staff and named administrators (positive interaction with admissions was highlighted), while others felt the organization prioritizes revenue and lacks transparency about what residents should bring or what to expect. Communication problems and frequent staff changes were mentioned as damaging to continuity of care. Cost is another recurrent theme: some reviewers feel prices are high relative to the level of care delivered, and note that budget constraints or high fees should be weighed against reported variability in care quality.
Patterns and actionable concerns: There is a clear pattern of variability — many residents and families report excellent experiences, while others report severe lapses that materially impacted resident safety and dignity. The negative reports cluster around nights/weekends, transitions (admissions/discharge), and residents with higher medical needs. Several specific actionable red flags emerge from the reviews: inconsistent call‑light response times, reports of missed or incorrect medications, hygiene/bedsores, mishandled personal items, and gaps in medical follow‑up. These are the kinds of issues families should probe directly when considering the community.
Bottom line and recommendations for prospective families: Columbia Presbyterian Community appears to offer a strong campus, rich activities, and many caring staff members, making it a good fit for independent seniors seeking an active, amenity‑rich lifestyle and for some memory‑care residents where reviewers described safe, attentive care. However, the number and severity of safety and neglect allegations reported by multiple reviewers mean that families of residents with higher acuity, recent hospitalization, active medical issues, or high fall risk should be cautious. If you are considering this community, visit multiple times (including evenings/weekends), ask for staffing ratios by shift, request written protocols for fall management and emergency response, review medication management policies, tour the specific unit you would be placed in, and speak with current resident families about responsiveness and incidents. Also clarify pricing, what belongings should be provided, and the policy for missing items. Those steps will help determine whether your likely level of care needs matches the strengths and shortcomings reflected in these mixed reviews.
