Overall impression: The reviews for Hidden Garden Assisted Living are strongly mixed, with a clear split between families who praise the staff and care and others who raise serious concerns about physical conditions and programming. Several reviewers give high marks for the personal attention and care delivered, while multiple reviews call out environmental problems (notably persistent odors and maintenance issues) that some feel make the facility unsuitable.
Care quality and staff: A dominant positive theme is the quality of hands-on care and the staff’s compassion. Multiple reviewers describe the staff as attentive, loving, and excellent; one staff member, Dee, is singled out positively by name. Reviewers mention 24-hour care and owners who are caring and involved, and at least one review gives the facility top marks across the board. These comments suggest that clinical and daily care routines are strengths and that staff-resident relationships can be very strong.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: Reports on cleanliness and the physical environment are inconsistent. Several reviewers explicitly state that rooms and parts of the facility are very clean and the courtyard is well kept. However, a recurring and serious negative theme is pervasive odor of feces and urine reported in living areas. Multiple summaries reference this smell, and one reviewer explicitly says odor control is needed. Other facility issues include outdated or dark furnishings, an older building that ‘‘needs updating,’’ and a specific safety concern — an unlevel bathroom floor. One review also notes extreme indoor heat (reported at 84°F), and another calls the overall living conditions “unfit” and even insulting to residents. Taken together, these comments indicate that while some areas are maintained, there are intermittent but significant environmental and maintenance problems that affect resident comfort and safety.
Activities and resident life: Several reviewers note a paucity of activities beyond television; descriptions include ‘‘few activities’’ and ‘‘no activities beyond TV.’’ The presence of hospice patients is mentioned in multiple summaries — neutral in itself but potentially important context for families considering the social atmosphere and care mix. Limited programming, combined with the small-home feel praised by other reviewers, suggests this facility may be better suited to residents who need more personal care and less structured recreational programming.
Dining and household services: Dining receives positive remarks: reviewers report homemade food and that meals are good. This is a consistent plus and complements the praise for attentive staff and a small-home environment.
Management, value, and family recommendations: Opinions on value are mixed. One review explicitly calls the facility overpriced and ‘‘not suitable for mom,’’ while others feel their loved ones are well cared for and happy. There are also reports of occasional staff lapses in courtesy (for example, an aide who did not greet a visitor) and at least one strong negative warning to ‘‘stay away.’’ These polarized perspectives indicate variability in family experience — likely tied to which staff are on duty, which areas of the building are used, and individual resident expectations.
Notable patterns and recommended actions for families: The two strongest and most consistent themes are (1) high marks for personal care and compassionate staff, and (2) recurring, troubling reports about odors, aging facilities, and at least one explicit safety/comfort issue (unlevel bathroom floor, extreme heat). Prospective families should weigh the strong praise for staff and individualized care against environmental complaints. Practical steps for an informed decision include touring the facility at different times of day to check for odors and temperature, inspecting bathrooms and flooring for hazards, asking about cleaning and odor-control protocols, inquiring how they separate or manage hospice residents, requesting a sample activities schedule, verifying 24-hour staffing, and asking for a clear fee breakdown to assess value. Given the mixed feedback, an in-person visit and conversations with multiple families currently in the home are especially important before making a placement decision.
