Overall sentiment about Asbury House, Senior Independent Living is mixed and highly variable: several reviewers report positive, helpful, and attentive care in a small, affordable setting, while other reviewers describe serious concerns about management decisions, limited services, and poor care outcomes. The facility appears to be small (about 14 studio apartments) and inexpensive (a reported rent of $470 with a noon meal included), which several families appreciate. At the same time, there are emphatic reports of negative experiences that raise red flags about admissions policies, transfer practices, and overall consistency of care.
Care quality and staff: Many reviewers describe staff as nice, attentive, and helpful — some went so far as to recommend the community and say it was a great place for a family member. This suggests a potentially warm, close-knit caregiving environment typical of small facilities. However, other reviews raise serious concerns about care quality, including one account of a transfer to a distant hospice facility that allegedly shortened a patient's time with family and was followed by the patient's death shortly after transfer. Such reports indicate that while front-line staff may be kind, higher-level clinical or administrative decisions have, at least in some cases, had severe negative consequences. There is also mention that management responsiveness has improved over time, implying past issues that are being addressed but not necessarily fully resolved.
Management and admissions: Management and admissions practices are a prominent area of criticism. Reviewers report strict admission criteria that prevented some prospective residents from being accepted. There are also complaints about management decisions around transfers (including transfers to distant hospice settings) and a perception among some reviewers that the facility is money-focused. At least one reviewer noted an improvement in management responsiveness, indicating some efforts at change, but the presence of multiple critical accounts suggests variability in how management issues affect resident experiences.
Dining and kitchen: Accounts of dining are mixed. Some reviewers praise the meals as very good with good variety, which aligns with positive reports of the noon meal being included with rent. Conversely, other reviewers complain that only one meal is served per day and note turnover in kitchen staff (multiple cooks over time), which can affect consistency and quality. This split suggests that food service may be generally acceptable for some residents but inconsistent or inadequate for others depending on timing and expectations.
Activities and social life: Activity offerings appear to be minimal. Several reviewers said there are no scheduled activities, and the social programing that does exist seems dependent on volunteers — examples include volunteer-led exercise classes and a low-cost Saturday night bingo game (nickel bingo). For potential residents who require or expect a robust, staff-led activities calendar, Asbury House may not meet those needs. The limited programming is a recurring theme and contributes to some families' negative perceptions.
Facilities and affordability: The facility is described as small with average-sized rooms and low costs (rent cited at $470, cheap laundry). For those prioritizing affordability and a smaller residential setting, these are clear advantages. The small size also aligns with reports of attentive staff and close personal attention. However, smaller facilities can also have limitations in staffing, activity programming, and in-house clinical resources, which is consistent with some of the concerns reviewers raised.
Notable patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The reviews show a clear split between families who had positive, helpful experiences and those who had serious concerns about care decisions and management practices. Recurrent themes are inconsistent experiences, limited activities, and concerns about admissions and transfer decisions. If considering Asbury House, prospective residents and families should weigh the facility's affordability, small size, and reports of attentive staff against the reported lack of scheduled activities, potential food-service inconsistencies, and the critical complaints about admissions/management decisions. Given the gravity of some negative reports (notably the transfer to hospice and the reported death), it would be prudent for prospects to ask direct questions about admissions criteria, transfer policies, staffing levels, meal schedules, and how care decisions are made and communicated to families.
