Overall sentiment: The reviews present a strongly mixed to negative picture of Ascension Living St. Francis Place. While multiple reviewers acknowledged positive aspects of the building and a handful of caring staff members, the dominant themes are recurring problems with care quality, staffing, management, cleanliness, and facility upkeep that led many reviewers to advise against placing a loved one there.
Care quality and safety: The most frequently cited concerns involve direct care and safety. Multiple reviewers reported serious lapses: call lights going unanswered for extended periods (as long as 30 minutes), doors left unopened for hours creating access and safety issues, reports of theft of money and pills, and at least one account of a resident falling and being left on the floor. Several reviewers described their loved ones as not being fed or groomed, and there are repeated claims of neglect on certain shifts—especially the second shift. One review notes administration of morphine with family authorization followed by the resident’s rapid decline and death; that reviewer also reported poor communication around the incident. These accounts point to inconsistent monitoring, potential medication-safety concerns, and a level of risk that reviewers found unacceptable.
Staffing, staff behavior, and management: Staffing and staff behavior are central themes. Many reviewers described the facility as seriously short-staffed and unresponsive, which they link directly to perceived declines in care (missed meals, unanswered calls, neglected hygiene). Staff behavior descriptions range from compassionate and attentive—specific praise was given to RN Angie, LPN Lisa, and CNAs July and Stacy—to rude, uncaring, or ‘‘mean’’ on other shifts. Reviewers specifically called out chatty nurses who do not provide adequate care and inconsistent follow-up from staff. Management and administrative oversight are characterized as poor: reviewers reported management being unaware of staff and patient movements, failing to communicate effectively with families, and not addressing systemic problems. A recurring conclusion among reviewers is that management does not provide sufficient supervision or accountability to ensure consistent, safe care.
Therapy, activities, and clinical programming: Reports about therapy are mixed but lean negative. A few reviewers noted a competent physical therapist, but multiple commenters said there was ‘‘no real physical or occupational therapy’’ and that therapy lacked meaningful exercises or progression. Activities were described as limited, and reviewers felt there was insufficient rehabilitation programming to meet patient goals compared to expectations or hospital-level therapy. This gap in rehabilitative services contributed to dissatisfaction for families expecting active therapy plans and measurable progress.
Facilities, cleanliness, and amenities: The physical building receives mixed feedback. Several reviewers called the building ‘‘well-kept’’ and appreciated features such as a central dining room, available coffee, a chapel/chaplain for Sunday mass, an on-site general store, and kitchenettes in apartments. However, there are repeated complaints about outdated in-room technology (old TVs, beds, slow/awful internet), old furniture, and lack of modern amenities. Cleanliness appears variable by area and floor: while some areas are maintained, others—particularly the third floor—were reported as dirty with grime on window sills, TV cabinets, and halls. Shared supplies such as ice packs were criticized, and the dining room was described as too small, with reports of cold food.
Culture and values: Several reviewers expressed concern that the facility’s stated Christian-based mission was not upheld in day-to-day operations, citing behavior they considered inconsistent with those values. Reviewers also described a perception that the facility is ‘‘money-focused’’ rather than quality-focused, suggesting a disconnect between marketing/mission statements and resident experiences.
Notable patterns and overall impression: A clear pattern emerges of inconsistent experiences that may depend on unit, shift, or individual staff. While a few staff members were singled out for positive, compassionate care and some residents appeared happy and comfortable, the stronger, more consistent complaints relate to understaffing, safety lapses, poor management oversight, inadequate therapy, and dated infrastructure. Families reported poor communication from administration and recommended caution; several explicitly said they would not recommend the facility. In summary, potential residents and families may find acceptable aspects (location, certain amenities, and some caring staff), but should weigh those against recurring reports of safety, staffing, and management problems. If considering this facility, prospective families should request recent staffing ratios, documentation of therapy programs, inspection/cleanliness records, and speak directly with multiple current families to understand variability between units and shifts.
