Overall sentiment: The reviews for Rosehaven Retirement Residents are predominantly negative, with multiple reviewers describing the community as a "horrible place" and expressing overall unhappiness. While a few individual staff members and the manager receive acknowledgement for caring behavior, the dominant themes are understaffing, unprofessional management practices, safety and theft concerns, poor food and lack of activities, and an aging, dark facility. Several reviewers indicate that the facility does not meet reasonable expectations given that residents are paying full-rate fees.
Care quality and staff: Reports about direct care are mixed but skew negative. A handful of staff members are described as kind or good, and some reviewers note that the manager cares about residents. However, more prevalent comments are that staff are unfriendly and unhelpful overall, and that the facility is understaffed. Understaffing appears to contribute to poor responsiveness and diminished day-to-day care. Together these points suggest inconsistent caregiving quality: occasional positive interactions exist, but they are overshadowed by systemic issues that reduce overall reliability of care.
Management and operations: Management is a focal point of criticism. Reviewers describe the manager as disorganized, citing an inability to locate hospital records and unprofessional behavior such as eating and talking on a cellphone while on duty. Although one summary states the manager "cares about residents," the operational shortcomings and lack of organization undermine that stated concern. There are also comments implying owner-level indifference — reviewers felt the owner was possibly unconcerned about serious incidents. Additionally, multiple reviewers emphasize that they or their loved ones are paying full rates despite these operational failures, which intensifies dissatisfaction.
Safety and security: Theft from residents is a major and recurring concern. Reviews specifically mention theft by staff, theft not being addressed by the facility, and at least one incident where another resident (not staff or management) recovered stolen items. The combination of reported staff theft and perceived failure to investigate or resolve thefts creates serious safety and trust issues for residents and families, and it is a significant negative pattern across the summaries.
Facility, dining, and activities: The building itself is described as an outdated 90-year-old structure and a dark environment, contributing to a gloomy atmosphere. Dining is repeatedly described as "terrible," and reviewers also note a lack of activities. Together these complaints point to a low-quality daily living environment — inadequate meals, minimal social or engagement programming, and an aging physical plant that may not be well maintained or adequately lit.
Notable patterns and implications: The reviews paint a picture of a facility with isolated pockets of caring staff but broader systemic problems: insufficient staffing, poor management practices, unresolved theft and security issues, substandard dining and programming, and an aging physical environment. Several issues reinforce one another (for example, understaffing can worsen care quality, reduce oversight leading to theft, and limit activity programming). The recurrence of similar complaints across reviews suggests these are not isolated incidents but patterns that affect multiple residents.
Summary judgement: Based solely on the provided reviews, Rosehaven appears to have serious operational and safety shortcomings that outweigh the limited positives. Families and prospective residents should be aware of repeated allegations of theft and lack of responsiveness from staff and management, as well as complaints about food, activities, and the physical condition of the building. At the same time, the presence of some caring staff and a manager who is perceived by some as concerned indicates that not all interactions are poor. However, the frequency and severity of the negative themes—particularly theft, unprofessional management, understaffing, and poor living conditions—are significant and would warrant further direct inquiry, verification, and caution before choosing this community.
