Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but consistent in key patterns: the campus, amenities, and front-line caregiving receive frequent praise, while management, staffing stability, dining consistency, and certain maintenance issues draw repeated criticism.
Care quality and staffing: Many reviews strongly praise CNAs, aides, and some nursing staff, noting caring, attentive behavior and long-standing employees who know residents well. Specific positives include a well-regarded Director of Nursing and accounts of staff going above and beyond (for example, staying through a snowstorm). However, there is a clear and recurring concern about staffing shortages, high turnover, and heavy use of temporary or agency personnel. Several reviewers describe inconsistent nursing responsiveness—some call nurses surly or unresponsive—and note a difference in quality between Assisted Living (generally reported as better) and the Healthcare/Skilled Nursing side (where care is more inconsistent). Communication lapses between CNAs and nurses and difficulty reaching staff by phone also appear repeatedly. One worrying, specific oversight mentioned is a tracking lapse that allegedly led to days without documentation of bowel movements for a resident.
Management and communication: Numerous reviewers report poor management, weak communication, and a decline in service after a prior administration, indicating possible operational instability. While monthly care meetings and some formal communication channels are mentioned positively, these are overshadowed for some by stories of non-existent or ineffective management, leaving family members frustrated. The combination of high turnover and management criticism suggests systemic issues that affect consistency of care and responsiveness to family concerns.
Dining and nutrition: Dining reviews are polarized. Several reviewers describe the food as very good to excellent, the cafeteria staff as helpful, and dining as a social, resort-like experience on better days. Others, however, report serious problems: heavy reliance on buffets, long waits for meals, cold or lukewarm food, lack of table service, and dining setups that are difficult for residents who use walkers. Dietary accommodations—especially gluten-free needs—are described as inconsistent, with at least some reports of residents becoming ill from food and frequent use of prepackaged dressings. This variability suggests that dining quality and safety may depend heavily on staffing, management emphasis, and the time of service.
Facilities and campus: The physical campus and grounds receive near-universal praise—many reviewers mention beautiful landscaping, incredible mountaintop views, well-kept grounds, and resort-like features such as two pools (one heated), high ceilings, and tasteful appointments. Apartments vary in size; some are described as spacious and comfortable with upgrade options, while others are noted as small with limited closet space. At the same time, several reviews raise concerns about aging infrastructure within some buildings: dirty elevators, worn carpeting, paint needing attention, and cigarette butts outside entrances. These maintenance issues contrast with the otherwise attractive campus and suggest some deferred upkeep in places.
Activities and services: Activity offerings are a strong selling point for many reviewers. The community is described as active, with exercise programs, social events (jazz nights, ice cream socials), outings, and a lively calendar that contributes to resident satisfaction and an engaging lifestyle. On-site rehab services and social dining opportunities are also frequently cited as valuable.
Costs and market positioning: Multiple reviewers emphasize that Alexian Village of Tennessee is expensive, with a substantial buy-in that makes it unaffordable for some. Several comments portray the community as refined or resort-like, which aligns with the high cost and the elevated expectations that come with it. For prospective residents, this means expectations for consistent, high-quality management and services should be clearly met; where they are not, dissatisfaction is more pronounced.
Notable patterns and final impression: The most consistent positive theme is the quality of front-line caregiving and the attractiveness of the campus and lifestyle offerings. The most consistent negative themes are staffing instability, management and communication problems, inconsistent dining and dietary safety, and some maintenance/oversight lapses. In short, Alexian Village appears to offer an excellent physical environment and many caring staff members, but systemic issues—particularly around management, staffing continuity, and service consistency—create a variable resident experience. Prospective residents and families should prioritize in-person tours, direct conversations about current staffing levels and turnover, dining accommodations (especially for special diets), recent maintenance plans, and concrete examples of how management addresses complaints and ensures continuity of clinical care.
