Lisenby Home Care Inc

Pros

• The in-home nursing care is pretty good for the most part.

Cons

• The service frequently has late nurse arrivals and no-shows.
• The director attributes issues to miscommunication or not knowing the nurse would be absent.
• Inter-office communication is severely lacking.
• There is insufficient staff to cover emergencies.
• The provider offers excuses whenever a nurse does not show up.
• A nurse failed to check vital signs or the wound during a visit.
• The nurse wrote an assessment stating there was no need for home health.
• The father-in-law developed a serious infection requiring ICU care after the care visit.

Review

In the accounts shared, there is a clear sense that the in-home nursing care, while competent in some respects, is undermined by chronic reliability and communication problems. The overarching theme is that the quality of care is often overshadowed by persistent scheduling issues. Late nurse arrivals and frequent no-call, no-show incidents are not isolated events but part of a pattern that many readers could describe as a systemic weakness in how the agency organizes and communicates with staff. The director is described as regularly attributing these problems to miscommunication or claims that the nurse's absence wasn't anticipated, rather than taking accountability. The core frustration centers on inter-office communication, which is depicted as severely lacking, and on a staffing shortfall that makes it difficult to cover emergencies or sudden changes in a patient's needs. The result, for many families relying on regular visits, is a sense of ongoing disruption and diminished trust because promises of timely care are consistently unmet.

One of the most persistent grievances is the inconsistency in staffing and the repercussions of poor communication. The reviewers emphasize that there is not enough staff to handle routine schedules or unexpected gaps in care. When issues arise - whether a nurse is late or does not show - the reaction from the leadership tends to be an explanation rooted in miscommunication. Rather than addressing the root causes, the response is often to chalk it up to a misunderstanding or to note that the nurse's absence wasn't anticipated. This pattern makes families feel as if there is no reliable contingency plan and that accountability is thin, especially when these lapses translate into real, tangible risks for vulnerable patients who depend on regular, consistent care.

The impact of these failures goes beyond mere inconvenience. In a particularly troubling account, a nurse sent to a family after a back surgery reportedly did not take basic steps or perform essential assessments. The nurse allegedly did not check vitals or inspect the wound, and, more troublingly, subsequently documented an assessment stating that there was no need for home health. Such actions are alarming because they imply a failure to observe critical signs that would normally trigger continued or intensified home-health support. The consequences of that single visit are described in stark terms by the reviewer, who highlights a chain of adverse outcomes that followed and were seemingly linked to substandard initial care.

The medical consequences described are severe and distressing. The reviewer recounts that the father-in-law, who needed home health after surgery, could not get out of bed unassisted, and his wound had not closed fully. Within two weeks, he developed an infection that spread to his blood and brain, landing him in the ICU. The account raises a troubling question: would a more attentive, properly executed in-home nursing assessment and continued care have mitigated or prevented this deterioration? The language suggests a belief that timely and appropriate home-health intervention might have made a meaningful difference, though the reviewer is careful not to claim certainty, instead voicing a strong suspicion that lapses in care contributed to a potentially preventable escalation.

Across the narratives, the response from the provider's leadership is consistently portrayed as insufficient and unsatisfactory. The pattern of excuses rather than substantive changes is a recurring complaint. The reviewers emphasize that "miscommunication" or unawareness of a nurse's absence are cited too often, while concrete steps to improve scheduling, staff coverage, and internal communication appear limited. This perceived lack of accountability amplifies the sense of risk for families who lean on home-health services to manage complex care needs at home. The trust built on regular, reliable visits is undermined by repeated experiences where caregivers cannot count on timely support or clear, proactive communication from the management level.

Given these experiences, the overall impression conveyed is one of caution and alarm. The reviewers express a strong recommendation to avoid this provider, citing not only the reliability issues but also the broader implications for patient safety and care continuity. The narratives underscore that even quality care during the actual visits cannot compensate for chronic scheduling failures, miscommunication, and insufficient staffing. In their view, the risk to vulnerable patients is too high when a home-health agency cannot guarantee punctuality, consistent coverage, and transparent accountability.

In closing, the stories reflect a broader concern about how these services balance compassion and clinical competence with logistical reliability. While the caregiving aspects that do function well may be appreciated, they are overshadowed by recurring problems in organization and execution. Families relying on home health deserve a system where a nurse's arrival time is dependable, where absences are anticipated and adequately covered, and where leadership stands behind the care delivered with concrete improvements rather than excuses. The sentiment here is a clear admonition: seek a provider with demonstrated, dependable scheduling, robust intra-office communication, and sufficient staffing to protect patients from the kinds of avoidable pitfalls described.

This part of Panama City, Florida offers a convenient location with easy access to pharmacies, physicians, restaurants, hospitals, parks, and cafes. There are multiple CVS Pharmacy locations nearby for medication needs and various physicians such as cardiologists and family practice doctors for medical care. Residents can enjoy dining options ranging from fast food to casual dining at restaurants like Bayou Joe's and Cracker Barrel. For medical emergencies or treatments, Columbia Hospital Limited Partnership and Fort Walton Beach Medical Center are within a short driving distance. Those who enjoy outdoor activities can visit Oaks By The Bay or take a short drive to St Andrews State Park. Additionally, there is a Starbucks cafe nearby for coffee lovers. Overall, this area provides a well-rounded living environment with essential amenities easily accessible for seniors looking to settle in Panama City.

Pharmacies

• CVS Pharmacy (0.1 miles)
• Health Mart Pharmacy (2.6 miles)
• Gulf Coast Pharmacy (2.6 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2.8 miles)
• Walgreens (3.5 miles)
• Winn-Dixie (3.5 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (3.6 miles)

Physicians

• Intervasc at Bay Radiology (0.2 miles)
• Vascular Laboratory of Northwest Florida (0.2 miles)
• Cardiology Associates (0.3 miles)
• Coastal Cardiovascular Surgeons (0.3 miles)
• Fox Family Practice (0.3 miles)
• Clinic of Pulmonary Medicine (0.7 miles)
• Gulf Coast Holistic and Primary Care (0.7 miles)

Restaurants

• Bayou Joe's (0.6 miles)
• History Class Brewing Company (0.6 miles)
• Arby's (1.8 miles)
• Chick-Fil-A (1.9 miles)
• Pepper's (2.1 miles)
• Cracker Barrel (2.3 miles)
• Panda Express (2.3 miles)

Hospitals

• Columbia Hospital Limited Partnership (2.6 miles)
• Fort Walton Beach Medical Center (3.5 miles)

Parks

• Oaks By The Bay (3.2 miles)
• St Andrews State Park (5.6 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (4.5 miles)