The reviews of Fair Haven Of Forest City show a mixed and sometimes contradictory picture, with clear strengths—and several recurring, significant concerns. Positive comments center on certain clinical and caregiving staff, cleanliness, food, and programming. Occupational therapy staff are singled out as professional and focused. Multiple reviewers described caregivers as helpful and praised overall care and assistance in some cases. The facility is described as very clean by some family members, food quality receives positive mentions, and there are reportedly many social activities and programs that support resident engagement. A few relatives explicitly stated that their family members were happy living at the facility.
However, those positives are tempered by numerous operational and clinical issues that appear repeatedly across reviews. A consistent theme is variability in CNA performance: reviewers mention inconsistent patient care, diapering lapses (CNAs not changing diapers), and long response times to call bells. Several accounts raise hygiene and wound-care red flags—dentures not being cleaned consistently and at least one instance where an open sore or skin tear was not noticed until days before discharge. These items indicate lapses in routine personal care and monitoring that could affect resident health and dignity.
Staffing and management concerns appear to underlie many of the negative reports. Reviewers describe staff as overworked and indicate that nurses sometimes avoid direct patient care, which may contribute to delayed responses and inconsistent basic-care tasks. Several comments point to management and training issues, including defensive responses when families raise concerns and a sense that training or supervision may be insufficient to ensure consistent standards. Cross-contamination concerns were also raised, suggesting potential infection-control problems.
Facility- and maintenance-related issues are also noted alongside the cleanliness praise. While some reviewers call the facility very clean, other specific problems were reported: a private room that shares a toilet, a cracked toilet tank, and a stained toilet floor. The grounds and access have shortcomings too—driveway potholes and insufficient parking were mentioned, which affect visitors' experience and could be a safety issue.
Dining and nutrition present a mixed picture. Although the food itself is described positively by some reviewers, there are reports of diet mismanagement significant enough that families felt the need to bring their own meals for residents. This suggests inconsistency in meeting individualized dietary needs or in communication about meal plans.
Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans toward concern because several issues touch on resident safety, hygiene, and basic care consistency. There are clear strengths—notably particular therapy staff, engaged caregivers, cleanliness for some areas, good food, and active programming—but recurring problems around CNA reliability, call response times, wound and denture care, diapering, staff workload, management responsiveness, and facility maintenance are significant. The pattern suggests possible staffing shortages or training/supervision gaps. For families and stakeholders, the reviews recommend weighing the praised aspects against the reported care and management issues and, if considering placement, asking targeted questions about staffing ratios, wound care policies, infection control, call response time metrics, and how lost items and clinical concerns are handled and documented.
