1900 Andrew Avenue, La Porte, IN 46350
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Golden Living Center - Fountainview Terrace Costs & Pricing
Golden Living Center - Fountainview Terrace offers competitive pricing for its private room accommodations, charging $5,430 per month. This rate is notably lower than the average for LaPorte County, which stands at $5,877, yet it remains higher than the statewide average of $4,418 in Indiana. This positioning suggests that residents can expect a quality living experience at Fountainview Terrace while still benefiting from cost efficiency compared to nearby facilities.
| Floor plans | Golden Living Center - Fountainview Terrace | LaPorte County | Indiana |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private | $5,430 | $5,877 | $4,418 |
Overall Review of Golden Living Center - Fountainview Terrace
Pros
The staff are friendly, caring, and attentive.
The facility is clean and quiet.
They made a difficult situation much better.
The care provided is outstanding.
The nurses and the housekeeper were nice and caring.
The office staff were very helpful.
They would recommend the facility and would be willing to return when needed.
Cons
The facility reminds visitors of institutions from the 1960s.
On the units, two to three people share a room with no privacy.
Some of the staff are rude.
Belongings are missing or found in another client's closet.
They do not receive straight answers when asked.
The reviewer would not recommend this facility.
There are unexplained bruises on the client and the client's needs are ignored.
The client was not given a shower.
The food is horrible.
The staff do not care for human life and appear to be only there for the paycheck.
The staff are rude, inconsiderate, and disrespectful.
The administration is rude and appears to be out of touch with residents' lives.
Review
Golden Living Center - Fountainview Terrace is best suited for families that can actively oversee care, especially when a rehab-focused stay or transitional long-term care is anticipated. The strongest argument for this community is found in the pockets where attentive staff and clean, quiet environments appear to exist, usually in situations where family members stay engaged, ask questions, and monitor daily routines. For residents who can tolerate an older building and variability in staff demeanor, there can be meaningful rehabilitation progress and genuine acts of kindness from a subset of caregivers. In short, this is a facility that can work if advocacy and ongoing oversight are a core expectation from the outset.
That said, this is not a place for families seeking consistent quality without scrutiny. Alternatives should be on the short list for anyone who cannot accept frequent lapses in privacy, cleanliness, and responsive care. Those with a strong preference for steady, respectful interactions across all shifts, a predictable meal program, and reliable medication management will likely want to compare options elsewhere. The most compelling reason to look elsewhere is the pattern of concern voiced about staff attitudes, privacy protections, and basic daily care, which suggests that the experience can be highly uneven from shift to shift.
The main pros, occasional compassionate staff, moments of clean, quiet surroundings, and some positive rehab and long-term care experiences, do not reliably offset the most troubling cons. In several accounts, residents describe rude or inattentive staff, frequent lapses in basic hygiene, and delayed responses to calls for help. Food quality and portion sizes are repeatedly criticized, and the building itself is described as older, with odor and cleanliness issues in some areas. Crucially, there are reports of missing personal belongings, unexplained bruises, and inconsistent adherence to medical directives, all of which undermine trust in daily safety and dignity. Where the positives show up, they are contingent on particular staff members and specific shifts, not guaranteed across the facility.
Families evaluating care should visit with a concrete checklist in hand: observe a shift change and note how staff communicate with residents; request a tour of multiple units during mealtimes and med-pass times to gauge consistency; review sample menus and actual trays, paying attention to portions and accuracy; ask about room assignments, especially for residents on Medicaid, since several accounts describe shared rooms with limited privacy and fewer amenities. Inquire about the facility’s response culture, how quickly calls are answered, how pain management is handled, and how med administration is tracked. Ask to see recent incident logs and follow up on any past concerns about privacy, theft, or neglect.
Ultimately, Fountainview Terrace presents a risk-reward scenario. If a resident requires rehab services and can function with careful, proactive family involvement, there can be workable care in a setting that occasionally demonstrates steadier performance. However, for families prioritizing unwavering dignity, consistent staff performance, and a consistently clean, responsive environment, serious consideration of alternatives is warranted. The decision should hinge on a forthcoming, detailed tour, frank conversations with the administrator, and a comparison against other nearby options that promise stronger and more uniform patient-centered care. In the end, this community should be one of several tissues for decision-making, not the default destination.









Comprehensive Supportive Living Arrangements for Adults with Disabilities
Funding and Affording Assisted Living: A Thorough Overview
Assisted Living Expenses and Long-Term Care Insurance: A Comprehensive Exploration