The reviews for Azalea Manor are highly polarized, with a clear split between reviewers who report a warm, home-like environment with caring staff and good food, and those who report serious lapses in care, safety, sanitation, and management. Several reviewers praise the facility for being very clean, affordable, and having a good staff-to-resident ratio. Positive comments repeatedly note helpful, pleasant, and caring staff, home-cooked and plentiful meals, private rooms with shared common areas, and small-house features such as friendly activities (bingo, cards) and TVs in common and private rooms. Multiple reviewers explicitly state they would recommend the facility and that it meets loved ones’ care goals. The facility’s acceptance of Medicaid and lower cost is also noted as a major positive by several families.
Conversely, a number of reviews allege serious problems with clinical care and management. These include claims that medications were withheld, residents ran out of medication, and there is no nurse on staff — all of which raise significant safety and regulatory concerns. Some reviewers go further, alleging staff abuse, neglectful behavior, and that residents left because of poor care; one review even alleges a premature death. There are also multiple complaints about an owner or administrator who is unqualified, has a bad attitude, or behaves rudely toward residents and families. These reports suggest inconsistent leadership and potential gaps in oversight.
Dining and sanitation are another area of sharp contrast. Numerous reviewers praise the home-cooked, delicious, and plentiful food; however, an almost equal number describe the food as horrible, unsanitary, or so limited that residents went hungry. Several mentions of insects (nats flying around), unsanitary conditions, and specific complaints about hall odors and smoke in hallways and at the entrance point to sanitation and environmental problems that some families find unacceptable. There are also practical facility complaints such as hard-to-find entrance, an outdated setup, a small facility footprint, and in at least one case lack of heat in residents’ rooms.
Activities and social engagement are inconsistently reported. Some families highlight entertaining activities and outings, while others note no activities or a lack of posted activity schedules. This suggests either changes over time or that programming may vary by day or by which staff are on duty. Staffing levels and clinical coverage are another inconsistent area: while some reviewers explicitly praise the staff and report good care, others say more help is needed or that there is no nurse on site, contributing to medication and care lapses.
Overall pattern and guidance: the reviews present a mixed portrait—some families experience a small, welcoming home with attentive staff, comfortable rooms, and good food at an affordable price; others report severe issues with care, medication management, sanitation, and management conduct. The frequency and severity of the negative reports (medication problems, alleged abuse, license concerns, unsanitary conditions, and residents leaving) are significant enough that prospective residents or family members should exercise caution. Practical next steps based on these patterns would be to verify current licensing and inspection history, ask directly about clinical staffing (nurse availability and medication administration procedures), tour the facility multiple times (including mealtimes and activity periods), check references from current resident families, and confirm policies on smoking and heating. The mixed set of reviews suggests the facility may provide good care at times but also has episodes or periods of serious concern; therefore, direct, up-to-date verification is essential before making placement decisions.
