The reviews for Big Meadows present a polarized picture: several reviewers express enthusiastic praise for the hands-on care certain residents received, while others report serious operational and communication problems. On the positive side, multiple comments highlight direct-care staff who are "kind and accommodating" and provide supportive care for family members (phrases used include "supportive to mom" and "care for dad" with an "A++++++" sentiment). Reviewers also noted daily activities are available and that the facility did not have offensive odors, indicating attention to programming and basic cleanliness.
However, a recurring negative theme is staffing and responsiveness. Multiple summaries explicitly call out a "staffing shortage," and others describe poor first impressions such as a "poor greeting" and "unhelpful staff." Several reviewers said staff were "not responsive to questions," which points to communication breakdowns between families and the facility. Phone and fax interactions were specifically called out as "unprofessional," suggesting problems at the front-desk or administrative communication level rather than only in direct care.
There is a pronounced contrast in staff behavior reports. Some reviewers describe staff as compassionate and accommodating in daily caregiving and activities, while others label staff as "rude" and accuse the organization of being a "horrible company" that "lies to your face" and shows "no respect for staff." These strong, conflicting characterizations indicate inconsistency in resident and family experiences—some families encounter attentive care teams, while others experience perceived dishonesty or disrespect possibly linked to management or systemic issues.
From a facilities and programming standpoint, the comments are limited but generally positive: the mention of "no odors" reflects acceptable cleanliness, and the availability of "daily activities" suggests engagement efforts for residents. There is no explicit feedback in these summaries about dining quality, medical services, or physical condition of apartments/rooms beyond the cleanliness comment, so those domains remain unaddressed in the provided summaries.
Management and organizational concerns are prominent in the negative summaries. Accusations such as "horrible company," requests that "they should shutdown," and claims that staff "lie to your face" imply perceived ethical or leadership failures and may be connected to understaffing and poor responsiveness. These comments point to potential systemic issues—high staff turnover, inadequate administrative support, or poor training/oversight—that could explain why some families experience excellent care while others do not.
Overall, the reviews indicate a mixed reputation for Big Meadows: clear strengths in compassionate direct care and resident engagement for some families, contrasted with significant warnings about staffing levels, reception/communication, and management integrity from others. The most notable pattern is inconsistency—highly positive, even effusive, individual testimonials coexist with harshly critical accounts alleging unprofessionalism and dishonesty. Prospective families should weigh both types of reports carefully, probe specifically about current staffing levels, communication protocols (including phone/fax responsiveness), and recent management changes, and seek direct, recent references or an in-person visit to observe whether the positive caregiving experiences appear consistent and whether the administrative issues have been addressed.
