Overall sentiment: Reviews for Known Memory Care at Tulsa are highly polarized. A substantial number of families and visitors give glowing endorsements: they describe a clean, smelling-fresh facility with compassionate, patient caregivers, strong dementia-focused programming, engaging activities, and well-groomed, happy residents. At the same time, a significant portion of reviews detail serious operational, safety, and management problems — from understaffing and high turnover to laundry mismanagement, hygiene failures, medication concerns, and alleged theft. The result is a split picture: many families feel very positively about the community and its staff, while others report experiences that raise safety and trust issues. These contrasting experiences appear to cluster by time period, shift, and management changes.
Care quality and staffing: One of the clearest themes is inconsistency in care quality. Numerous reviewers praise specific caregivers, med aides, and long-term office or activities staff for dedication, responsiveness, and clinical skill. Several families credit the facility with meaningful improvements in mood, appetite, and engagement for their loved ones. Conversely, many other reviews recount understaffing, frequent no-shows, heavy reliance on agency staff unfamiliar with residents, and months without a consistent on-site nurse. These staffing problems are repeatedly linked to lapses in basic care (missed baths, delayed medications, unaddressed incontinence, and bed sores). High turnover and abrupt managerial changes are repeatedly cited as triggers for declining care, with multiple reports that service quality deteriorated after new leadership or staffing policies were implemented.
Safety, hygiene, and possessions: Safety-related complaints are among the most serious recurring themes. Several families reported falls, bruises, bed sores, residents sleeping in soiled bedding, urine-stained sheets, and rooms that smelled of urine or old feces. There are also multiple accounts of hazardous conditions (broken glass left in a chair, broken furniture) and incidents of residents groping others with inadequate supervision. Allegations of missing or stolen items (including an emerald and diamond ring) and broken personal property compound concerns about accountability. Some reviews describe emergency call devices as absent or inoperable, and others describe locked or open-entry layouts that create privacy or security worries. Taken together, these issues suggest that when staffing or management problems occur, resident safety and dignity can be put at risk.
Management, communication, and billing: Management and administration are focal points of criticism. Several reviewers say management ignored complaints, backpedaled on promises (including refunds), or were slow to respond. There are reports of billing disputes and a perception by some families that the monthly cost is not commensurate with the care provided (one complaint contrasted a $6,500 monthly fee with perceived $2,000 worth of services). Communication gaps are noted as well: families asked for better portals or clearer scheduling information (doctor visits, haircuts), reported unanswered calls, and inconsistent updates. In contrast, other reviewers commend particular managers or staff for compassionate assistance during moves and transitions, indicating variability in administrative responsiveness depending on personnel and timing.
Facilities, meals, and activities: Physical facilities and programming receive predominantly positive comments. Many reviews praise the cleanliness, the pleasant smell, modern/renovated interiors, spacious rooms, large closets, and professional tour experiences. The community's design and memory-care orientation are frequently cited as appropriate for residents with dementia. Activities programming and a strong activities director receive repeated praise; many families note robust calendars, socialization in common areas, music and dancing, church services, and creative/dementia-appropriate engagement. Dining feedback is mixed: numerous families enjoyed restaurant-like, well-balanced fresh meals and snacks, while others described food as inedible, poorly portioned, or missing utensils like butter knives. Thus, dining quality appears to vary between experiences and possibly between meal services or staffing levels.
Patterns and likely explanations: The reviews suggest that the facility has many strengths — a core group of dedicated staff members, an effective activities program, a clean and welcoming campus, and a clear focus on memory care — but also vulnerabilities tied to staffing levels, turnover, and management consistency. Positive reviews frequently reference long-tenured staff, stable caregivers, and strong clinical leadership; negative reviews often coincide with periods of turnover, new management, or heavy use of agency staff. This pattern indicates that resident experience may be highly dependent on staffing stability and local leadership effectiveness at any given time.
Conclusion and practical takeaways: For families considering Known Memory Care at Tulsa, the community shows clear potential and many strong attributes for memory-care residents: cleanliness, a pleasant environment, a meaningful activity program, compassionate caregivers (when present), and memory-care expertise. However, the volume and seriousness of negative reports — especially those concerning personal hygiene, laundry, medication management, safety incidents, theft, and management responsiveness — are substantial and cannot be ignored. Prospective families should do an up-to-date, in-person assessment focused on current staffing levels, nurse availability, laundry and hygiene procedures, medication protocols, emergency devices, incident reporting, and billing/contract terms. Ask for recent staffing rosters, turnover statistics, incident logs, and references from current residents’ families to judge whether the positive practices described in many reviews are currently consistent and reliable.
