Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed, with many families and residents praising the staff, the facility's physical environment, and the variety of activities, while a substantial number of reviews describe serious and recurring operational, safety and management failures. Positive comments frequently highlight warm, compassionate caregivers, a bright and well-kept building, comfortable apartments, and robust programming (arts, outings, movies, salon, gym). Many reviewers say residents enjoy social dining rooms, make meaningful friendships, and feel at home; memory care programming and the ability to transition between levels of care in one building are also cited as strengths.
Staff and caregiving are the most polarizing themes. Numerous reviewers emphatically describe caregivers as kind, dedicated, and personally attentive — noting staff who know residents by name, respond with empathy, and occasionally go above and beyond (moving apartments at staff expense, personalized food orders, supportive follow-through). However, a large and recurring set of reviews reports understaffing, high turnover, and inconsistent training. These reviews cite late or missed medication deliveries, missed or delayed responses to call buttons, residents being left in soiled clothing, lack of basic hygiene assistance, and caregivers stretched too thin to provide consistent supervision. In short: some shifts/staff are excellent, while others show troubling lapses in care.
Safety and medical concerns appear frequently and in serious detail. Multiple reviews recount falls resulting in injuries ranging from sutures to hip fracture, situations where families were not promptly notified, and follow-up lapses (call systems not found or alarms unfixed for long periods). There are reports of medication mistakes, inadequate therapy or monitoring, and allegations that medical/therapy credentials were revoked in at least one instance. Several reviewers also describe unexpected out-of-pocket medical costs and ambulance charges. These accounts point to systemic risk areas around monitoring, alarm reliability, staffing levels, and clinical oversight.
Dining and food service are another major area of mixed feedback. A number of families praise excellent food, generous options, and courteous dining staff. Conversely, many reports describe meals that arrive cold, are overcooked or undercooked, are late or incomplete, or lack seasoning and variety. Specific operational issues were mentioned (lost meal tickets, limited dining options included in rent, extra charges for additional meals), and several reviewers say kitchen quality has declined over time. Dining inconsistencies contribute to perceptions of poor value given the community’s often high costs.
Facilities and amenities receive consistently positive feedback: the building is repeatedly described as beautiful, bright, hotel-like, and well maintained, with numerous spaces for activities, family visits, and quiet time. Reviewers appreciate the onsite services (salon, theater, library, gym), large windows, storage, and accessible showers. Housekeeping is praised in many accounts, though other reviews note uneven housekeeping, soiled bathrooms, lingering odors, and poorly organized laundry systems in some instances.
Management, communication and governance are frequent points of contention. Several reviewers praise specific managers and directors for responsiveness and problem-solving. At the same time, there are many complaints about corporate control overriding local authority, frequent turnover in leadership, refusal to accept feedback, rude or dishonest front-desk interactions, and poor responsiveness to calls and emails. Families reported moves of residents without notice, withheld information, and administrative staff hanging up on callers. Poor communication also extended to IT and resident engagement tools (e.g., ViewClix setup problems), unclear points of contact during the move-in period, and difficulty navigating billing and insurance questions.
Infection control, privacy and compliance issues were raised by multiple reviewers. Some alleged lapses in PPE use and bloodborne pathogen precautions, reports of residents with COVID in common areas without masks, and concerns about vaccination policies created anxiety and distrust for families of medically vulnerable residents. There were also serious allegations of HIPAA/privacy violations and instances where staff or management handled sensitive situations poorly.
A recurrent pattern across reviews is polarization by unit, shift and time: many families express deep gratitude and recommend the community, frequently pointing to particular staff members, while other families warn to “avoid at all costs” due to safety incidents, neglect, or poor management. This suggests variability in resident experience depending on staffing stability, specific caregivers, leadership at a given time, and whether families actively advocate on behalf of their loved ones.
In summary, Bonaventure of Lacey is viewed by many as an attractive, activity-rich community with many caring staff and strong amenities. However, persistent and significant concerns about staffing levels and turnover, management and communication failures, dining quality, safety incidents (falls, medication issues and delayed responses), laundry and lost-item problems, and infection-control or privacy allegations appear repeatedly. Prospective residents and families should weigh the clear strengths in environment and certain staff teams against the documented operational vulnerabilities: verify current staffing ratios, ask about alarm/call system maintenance and alarm response protocols, clarify billing and extra-charge practices in writing, and identify clear points of contact for ongoing communication and incident escalation. The reviews collectively indicate a facility capable of providing an excellent experience under the right staffing and management conditions — but also one where families must remain vigilant and engaged to ensure consistent, safe care.
