Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but leans positive, with a clear pattern of many reviewers praising the facility’s recent leadership and staff while a smaller number report serious management and trust concerns. Multiple reviewers explicitly name Tanisha Brown (and reference a nurse-owner) and attribute a positive turnaround to the change in ownership/management. Many families and residents emphasize compassionate, attentive care, respectful treatment, and staff who go above and beyond. Staff are frequently described as friendly, warm, accommodating, upbeat, and good problem-solvers. Several reviewers highlight quick issue resolution and the owner’s accessibility by phone, suggesting an operational responsiveness that families appreciate.
Facility and living conditions receive mostly favorable comments: reviewers note cleanliness of rooms and dining areas (freshly mopped and freshly painted), private bathrooms in rooms, a comfortable day room with puzzles and games, and a pleasant front porch. The facility’s flexible furniture policy (bring your own or use provided furniture) is viewed positively, as is the fact that the home helps residents maintain their support systems and keeps them in the same local area where they previously lived. Pricing is repeatedly described as affordable and all-inclusive, with multiple comments that the community offers good value for money.
However, there are important and consistent concerns that temper the positive comments. A cluster of reviews raises serious allegations about management untrustworthiness, including privacy violations, personal items alleged to have been taken, rude behavior by the owner, and even denied phone calls. Other reviews report deposit refund problems and periods of owner unresponsiveness. These are not the majority of reviews, but their severity means they are notable and warrant caution. Another recurring issue is inconsistent dining quality: while some reviewers praise the food as wonderful, others describe it as frozen or canned and unsatisfactory. The facility itself is described as older in some areas, with specific mentions of carpet needing replacement.
Activities and off-site engagement are another mixed area: the community appears to offer in-house social spaces and games, but several reviewers note a lack of resident outings and transportation limitations due to the facility’s distance from families or local resources. This suggests that prospective residents who expect frequent off-site activities or who rely on provider transportation should ask about scheduled outings and transport policies.
The pattern that emerges is one of a community that has received tangible improvements and strong praise from many residents and families under new leadership, especially regarding caregiving, cleanliness, affordability, and responsiveness. At the same time, there are repeated and serious complaints from a minority of reviewers about management behavior, privacy, and financial/contract issues. Because of these conflicting experiences, prospective residents and families should consider visiting in person, meeting the owner and staff, inspecting rooms and communal areas, asking for references from current families, reviewing contract and deposit/refund policies in writing, clarifying food service sourcing and menu options, and confirming transportation and outing schedules. Doing so will help verify the positive attributes highlighted by many reviewers while identifying and mitigating the specific risks raised by the negative accounts.
