10516 France Avenue South #324, Bloomington, MN 55431
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of A+ Home Health Care
Pros
The reviewer sees opportunities to raise professionalism.- The reviewer identifies potential improvements in client drug screening.
- The reviewer believes communication can be strengthened through a reliable office number.
- The reviewer sees room to streamline staffing timelines.
Cons
They are not very professional.- Clients sent to them are not screened for drugs, and they have to let one go for being high on the job.
- They receive calls from "Google" phone numbers from staff, instead of a valid office number.
- They have problems finding staff in a reasonable amount of time.
Review
A+ Home Health Care in Bloomington, MN is best suited for families who want a locally focused, hands-on in-home care option and are prepared to supervise care closely. The practical reality is that success with this agency hinges on active family involvement, monitoring who is sent into the home, how staff are sourced, and how communications are handled. The arrangement can work when households have the bandwidth to manage scheduling, vet caregivers, and maintain ongoing oversight, and when a willingness to lean into a less predictable staffing pattern is present. In short, this provider rewards vigilance and direct engagement more than it rewards passivity or hands-off outsourcing of care tasks.
Those for whom alternatives should be seriously considered include families prioritizing rock-solid reliability, rigorous staff screening, and crystal-clear, professional communications. If a client needs guaranteed professional intake processes, rapid and consistent staffing, or a transparent, office-backed communication channel, this agency may fall short. Bigger, more established home-health networks or hospital-affiliated services typically offer standardized screening, clearer caregiver continuity, and better documented responsiveness; for peace of mind and predictable care rhythms, those options are worth pursuing.
The most compelling concerns emerge squarely from the reported experiences: a lack of professionalism, caregivers being placed with clients without proper screening, and at least one instance of a caregiver allegedly being impaired on the job. Add in the absence of a reliable, clearly identifiable office line, replacements via Google-number calls rather than a stable contact number, and the pattern becomes difficult to overlook. Compounded by reports of difficulty securing staff promptly, these issues elevate risk around safety, liability, and consistency of daily care. In practice, families should view these red flags as more than minor irritants; they signal real fragility in the service model.
There is little to point to as a robust counterweight to these concerns. The presence of a single five-star rating offers a glimmer of positive potential, but without substantive detail, it cannot counterbalance the repeated warnings. The small scale of the operation can, in theory, permit tighter, more personalized attention when staffing is stable. However, with inconsistent screening, questionable communication practices, and slow or irregular caregiver placement, any theoretical advantage is quickly eclipsed by the concrete risks to safety and continuity of care. The balance clearly tilts toward caution for households that cannot absorb variability or who cannot directly oversee every shift.
To evaluate this provider responsibly, families should demand concrete assurances before committing. Request a written policy on caregiver background checks, drug screening, and ongoing monitoring; insist on a primary office contact number and any available escalation path for urgent issues; ask for documented staffing metrics, including typical response times and backup coverage; seek references from current and recent clients with verifiable outcomes; and negotiate a trial period with clear performance benchmarks and a plan for immediate replacement if standards aren’t met. These checks turn informal assurances into measurable commitments, and they help families decide with confidence rather than hope.
Ultimately, the decision hinges on risk tolerance and oversight capacity. Given the limited positive signals and the clearly articulated concerns, this Bloomington provider is not a default choice for families needing dependable, consistently screened in-home care. If the plan is to proceed, it should be with stringent guardrails and a candid expectation that oversight will be necessary every step of the way. For most households, exploring alternatives with stronger transparent processes and proven staffing reliability will yield better long-term outcomes, with less daily friction and greater assurance of safety and continuity.
21 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Beauty salon
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Kitchenette
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Restaurant-style dining
Small library
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Minneapolis-St Paul International (7 miles away)
24-hour call system
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Medication management
Mental wellness program
Special dietary restrictions
Vibrant Senior Living: A Comprehensive Guide for Active Older Adults
When to Transition from Assisted Living to Memory Care: Key Indicators, Steps, and Finding the Right Community
Assisted Living and Memory Care: Understanding Their Core Differences