First Call Home Care Inc in Lauderhill, FL

Pros

• Care on Call is described as the company you can trust to meet a loved one’s needs, delivering a consistently great experience from the first contact.
• Debra is described as sweet, understanding, and highly capable in her role.
• The first nurse, Vernel, is characterized as kind, patient, and genuinely passionate about his work, helping the mom feel comfortable.
• The PT and OT providers are gentle, attentive, and communicate with respect to keep the patient well-informed.
• The care team is highly communicative and provides abundant useful information; the owner is caring and dedicated to quality care.
• The office staff, especially Deborah, are experienced, responsive, and able to arrange seamless, end-to-end services including transportation and post-op support.
• The overall experience is wonderful and highly recommended by those who used the service.

Cons

• Care on Call is accused of not caring about patients and being self-serving.
• The office staff are described as rude and not helpful.
• It’s claimed the company charges for 45 minutes but spends far less time with the patient.
• The organization is said to have no place in home healthcare, with a staff member labeled a liar and the team described as unprofessional and self-centered.
• One reviewer states they would not recommend the company and would give zero stars if possible.

Review

This Lauderhill provider is best suited for families seeking intensely personal, hands‑on in‑home care with a genuine family‑owned ethos. It works well for seniors who need ongoing personal care, steady communication, and coordinated support across nursing, physical therapy, and occupational therapy, all with reliable transportation for medical appointments. The strongest fit is a loved one who benefits from consistent, compassionate caregivers who partner closely with family members rather than simply fulfill a schedule. When the goal is care that feels tailored, approachable, and attentive, where the care team becomes an extension of the family, the fit is solid.

Those prioritizing standardized processes, predictable pricing, or broad national coverage may want to consider alternatives. Some families will prefer larger, more corporate agencies with formalized quality assurance and a wider pool of caregivers to draw from for very specific or highly escalated needs. If a strict, uniform caregiver roster is essential, or if past experiences have hinged on friction with office staff, exploring other providers with clearer billing protocols and more systematic client service may reduce friction and deliver greater consistency.

The key positives here, notably, highly engaged clinicians, clear communication, and hands‑on diligence, often offset the main drawbacks. The care team’s combination of a compassionate nurse, gentle therapists, and an owner who stays involved creates a continuity of care that families frequently highlight as a standout advantage. In practice, this means better bedside manner, more thorough explanations, and a smoother handoff between hospital or clinic visits and home care. The availability of medical transportation and post‑op coordination helps sustain momentum after surgeries, hospital stays, or procedures, reducing the risk of lapses in support.

Real‑world examples reinforce the value of the strengths. A nurse named Vernel is repeatedly described as meticulous and reassuring, with a talent for helping a patient acclimate and regain life enjoyment during difficult periods. Therapists are praised for their gentleness and for communicating in a way that respects the patient’s dignity. The leadership’s approach, visible ownership, follow‑through on quality questions, and rapid response to urgent needs (even outside normal hours) during emergencies, contributes to a sense of reliability that families rely on when coordination with multiple providers is essential. These elements collectively push the care experience toward thoroughness and personal attentiveness.

Nevertheless, the service has its risk points. A subset of reviews reports poor office interactions and concerns about billing, claims of rude conversations or questions about time billed versus time spent with the patient. While such reports appear less common than overwhelmingly positive testimonies, they indicate potential friction at the administrative level that can color the overall experience. The 3.7 average rating across 11 reviews reflects a divided perception: strength in hands‑on care and responsiveness versus uneven customer service experiences. Those considering this option should plan for clear, written billing terms and a named point of contact to shield the care plan from miscommunications.

In the end, the decision rests on alignment between needs and the agency’s distinctive strengths. Prospective clients should pursue a clearly defined care plan with a single, dedicated coordinator, request consistent caregiver assignments where possible, and insist on transparent, written billing policies. A trial period with explicit expectations for response times, caregiver compatibility, and emergency support can reveal whether the personal, family‑governed approach delivers the steady, connected care sought. If such a model resonates, where care feels individualized, responsive, and supported by engaged leadership, this provider stands out as a compelling choice. If the emphasis is on uniform processes, unwavering price predictability, or impersonal scale, alternatives may be the wiser route.