Saint Cyril The Great Assisted Living Facility in Dania Beach, FL

Pros

• The facility is very nice, clean and well maintained.
• The staff are friendly, professional and take pride in their work.
• They care for the residents and the residents appear content and satisfied with their care.
• The director, administrator and caring staff go above and beyond to provide quality of life for the resident.
• The layout is exceptional for residents, with a beautiful courtyard, dining hall and added features.
• They made the last few months of his life his happiest.

Cons

• They are charging her account for almost two months and will not call back or answer emails.
• They ignore the patients and treat hospice patients badly.
• They do not take care of the elderly and will not feed or bathe residents who canā€™t walk.
• They kicked out a resident who needed more care, and they called her names and neglected her.
• They had bed bug issues and made no attempt to contact families about it.
• The facility lacks enough staff to care for residents and is dirty with a bad smell.
• The staff are unprofessional, unwelcoming, and disorganized; there was no nurse or doctor on site.
• The place is described as horrible, like a prison, with residents complaining about the food and level of care.

Review

Saint Cyril The Great Assisted Living Facility in Dania Beach is best suited for families that are highly budget-conscious and willing to supervise care very closely, almost constantly, to offset significant inconsistencies in service. The reviews paint a picture of a facility that can barely maintain basic operations under time pressure, with a price point that attracts those seeking the cheapest option in the area. For families needing reliable nursing oversight, consistent feeding, and predictable safety, this community presents a high-risk proposition rather than a dependable fit. In short, it is not the first choice for residents with complex medical needs or mobility demands that require regular professional intervention.

Those who should seriously consider alternatives include families with dementia or memory-care residents, fragile seniors who rely on 24/7 nursing attention, and anyone who cannot devote substantial time to daily oversight. Several reviewers describe missed meals, neglected care, and insufficient staff, which translates into real safety concerns for residents who cannot advocate for themselves. Billing disputes and lack of prompt communication further complicate the decision, raising alarms about financial transparency and accountability. For anyone prioritizing consistent medical attention, clear stewardship of medications, and dependable emergency response, another option is strongly advisable.

On the positive side, there are repeated mentions of a facility layout that can feel open and navigable, with features like accessible first-floor rooms and courtyard spaces that support physical therapy and social engagement. A few reviewers highlight caring staff and a sense of warmth among some team members, suggesting that when supervision is adequate and staffing is present, residents can experience moments of genuine attention and comfort. When care plans are well-communicated and family access is respected, the environment can briefly align with more favorable expectations, an important caveat given how variable the overall experience appears to be.

The weight of the negative reviews, however, massively outweighs these potential strengths. Allegations of fraudulent billing, rooms left dirty, persistent cleanliness issues, and even bed bug encounters point to deep-rooted operational problems. Countless accounts describe residents who are not fed in a timely fashion, call buttons that do not function, and staff who appear unprepared or overwhelmed. The absence of adequate nursing or medical oversight, often the linchpin in quality senior care, contributes to a sense that the facility operates more like a low-cost housing option than a compliant, resident-centered care environment. Safety, dignity, and basic sanitary standards are repeatedly questioned.

Under these conditions, the positives cannot reliably offset the major drawbacks. A few comforting anecdotes do not counterbalance systemic concerns about neglect, mismanagement, and the reputational risk represented by ongoing complaints about billing and care quality. For a family with a resident who can tolerate irregular care, or for someone who can be present frequently to monitor meals, hygiene, and safety, there may be a narrow window where Saint Cyril could function as a stopgap solution. Yet for most families, especially those with memory impairment, mobility limitations, or medical fragility, the likelihood of unmet needs remains unacceptably high.

Practical decision steps follow: conduct multiple, in-person visits at different times of day to observe staffing, meal service, and activity participation; request to review the current care plan and every residentā€™s medication administration record, then verify nurse availability on site and response times; ask for recent state survey results and any open complaints, and contact those references to verify consistency of care. Probe billing practices directly: request a transparent ledger, a contract clause detailing what is billable, and a clear process for dispute resolution; insist on a written plan for how concerns will be escalated and resolved. Finally, compare with nearby communities that consistently receive higher marks for staffing, cleanliness, and medical oversight, and secure an exit strategy with a guaranteed transfer path if conditions do not improve.

In sum, Saint Cyril The Great Assisted Living Facility presents a substantial red flag profile even as it offers a basic, low-cost option. The predominance of accounts detailing neglect, safety lapses, and financial irregularities makes it advisable to pursue stronger alternatives before committing. If this option is pursued, it should be contingent on a tightly negotiated care plan, rigorous oversight, and an explicit, time-limited trial period with an immediate, reliable exit route. For most families, broader market comparison is prudent, prioritizing facilities with demonstrably consistent staffing, transparent billing, and a record of dignified, attentive resident care.