Greenfield Assisted Living II in Gilbert, AZ

Senior living communities with a similar price nearby

• from -$375 / mo

  The Eldercare Home Of Tempe

  5 from 44 reviews

  $2,625 to $3,412 / month

  12.2 miles away
• from -$500 / mo

  La Bella Vita ALH

  5 from 31 reviews

  $2,500 to $7,000 / month

  5.9 miles away
• from -$500 / mo

  Bella Vista Assisted Living Home

  5 from 15 reviews

  $2,500 to $3,000 / month

  5.7 miles away
• from +$200 / mo

  Evergreen Assisted Living

  5 from 13 reviews

  $3,200 to $7,500 / month

  24.1 miles away
• About the same

  Desert Winds I

  5 from 12 reviews

  $3,000 to $3,800 / month

  11.0 miles away

Pros

• The staff are very helpful and answer questions about the care available.
• The environment is clean and comfortable, making families feel at ease.
• There are activities for residents who can participate, enhancing engagement.
• The meals are good and residents receive good overall care.
• Greenfield Assisted Living is a good fit for residents and comes recommended.
• The group home is great for seniors, with compassionate RNs, planned activities, and attentive, prompt care.

Cons

• The reviews describe the caregivers as inexperienced and irresponsible who disregard hospice instructions.
• They state that Hospice of the Valley would not place a patient in that facility again and warn others not to use it.
• They claim there are no activities, the food consists of soup and leftovers, and the staff are untrained.
• The owner and the office manager are labeled as dishonest and not treating residents with kindness or respect.
• They allege that staff worked while sick, infected the entire house, and a feverish caregiver sorted medications at the kitchen table without a mask or gloves.
• They say the owner’s claimed medical expertise is a total lie.
• There is a direct warning not to leave a loved one in this facility.

Review

Greenfield Assisted Living II in Gilbert is best suited for families seeking a small, home-like setting with direct medical oversight and a hands-on approach to daily care. The facility is described as plush and clean, with meals that residents generally enjoy and a schedule of activities that can engage those who participate. Two registered nurses operate the home, and long-tenured residents suggest a level of stability that can be appealing to families prioritizing continuity of care. For families that value a non-institutional atmosphere coupled with visible medical attention, this community presents a practical fit.

However, alternatives should be considered for those who place a premium on consistently trained staff, transparent operations, and a safety-first mindset. Several reviewers raise red flags about the caregiving team, alleging inexperience and disregard for hospice instructions. One review notes dishonesty from the owner and office manager, while others describe staffing failures during illness and questionable handling of medications. A hospice partner reportedly would not place a patient here, a signal that warrants careful scrutiny for families navigating end-of-life care and strict care coordination requirements.

On balance, the positives in favor of Greenfield II, helpful staff during tours, a clean environment, and a clear commitment to resident well-being, do matter. Families report good meals, planned activities, and a sense that caregivers are genuinely attentive. The presence of two RNs or physician-owners who address resident needs promptly can be a decisive advantage for residents needing medical oversight within a home-like setting. For some families, these factors translate into meaningful daily comfort and a reliable point of contact for changes in condition or care plans.

Yet the most serious concerns cannot be dismissed. Instances described by reviewers point to potential inconsistencies in staffing quality, infection-control practices, and the behavior of leadership. The combination of enthusiastic praise from some families and strong warnings from others creates a risk-reward calculus: the medical leadership and personable environment can offset routine gaps only if staff training and supervision are consistently strong. In situations where end-of-life planning and meticulous adherence to care instructions are paramount, these reports deserve careful validation before commitment.

For families considering a move, several practical questions can illuminate fit and safety. Seek detailed staffing schedules and ratios, and verify ongoing supervision by the on-site RN or owners. Request references from current residents or families and arrange to speak with them about day-to-day care and responsiveness. Tour the facility with a focus on meal quality, activity offerings, cleanliness, and safety protocols, including how medications are stored and administered. Clarify how hospice information is coordinated and how care plans are implemented if a resident’s condition changes.

Ultimately, Greenfield Assisted Living II offers a credible option for a small, home-like environment with accessible medical oversight and engaging programming, but it is not universally suitable. The best fit emerges for families willing to accept some variability in staffing and management so long as medical oversight remains dependable and the facility upholds a consistently clean, caring atmosphere. For those prioritizing unwavering staffing discipline, strict safety practices, and transparent, hospice-aligned operations, exploring other communities may be the wiser path. When due diligence is completed and trustworthy validations are confirmed, Greenfield II can be a strong match for the right resident and family.