Kindred At Home VI in Edina, MN

Pros

• Gentiva's team has been kind, thoughtful, and thorough from the exploratory phase through the entire care process.
• Gentiva Hospice has provided the extra TLC that their loved one needed, and the entire team is greatly appreciated.
• The staff are attentive, helpful, and responsive, with regular updates that ease worry.
• Kindred Hospice (Minnesota) has offered excellent, professional, caring, and supportive care across multiple family members.
• The Kindred team is incredibly helpful, professional, caring, and supportive; families trust them 100%.
• What a kind, compassionate, and caring group of people they are, getting families through difficult times.

Cons

• The care was terrible and unethical, with the family fighting to release their uncle to a residential facility and alleging the provider was only stringing them along to make money.
• Kindred Hospice was described as terrible because the family had to purchase all supplies themselves and the service failed to provide timely assistance.
• A nurse arrived only after a week, when the patient was near death, and staff insisted that the patient wasn't dying.
• The family ended up managing medications and supplies themselves due to insufficient hospice support.
• Overall, the reviewer would not recommend Kindred Hospice to anyone.

Review

Kindred At Home VI in Edina is best suited for families seeking hospice support delivered by a familiar, brand-name provider, with an emphasis on compassionate, hands-on care and steady guidance. The community tends to resonate with caregivers who want clear explanations about hospice goals, symptom management, and comfort planning, and who appreciate reliable access to clinicians, social workers, and chaplains. For those who value regular updates, direct contact with a steady care team, and a human-centered approach during a stressful time, this provider can feel like a steadying presence. The track record includes multiple positive experiences, though those impressions sit alongside distinctly troubling accounts that must be weighed in any major decision.

However, potential clients should consider alternatives if reliability and seamless administration are non-negotiables. Several reviews describe delays in nurse visits, inconsistent communication, and a sense that operations overshadow patient comfort. The most troubling reports highlight perceived unethical behavior and money-driven dynamics around transfers and services. Some families also found themselves purchasing supplies out-of-pocket and waiting for care until a nurse or clinician finally arrived. Where predictability matters, especially in end-of-life moments, these patterns can erase the benefits of warmth and education, pushing families to look for providers with demonstrated, rapid response and transparent logistics.

On the plus side, the strengths are tangible for those who experience them. Numerous reviewers praise a compassionate, reachable team that explains hospice in plain terms, offers regular updates, and co-creates care plans aligned with patient goals. Clinicians, aides, social workers, and chaplains are described as patient-centered and responsive, with staff going the extra mile to reassure families during uncertainty. The consistency of personal attention stands out: specific names and roles, such as Katie M., nurses, and the administrative team, are repeatedly cited for helpfulness and reliability, creating a sense of steadiness in chaotic moments.

Yet the other side is hard to ignore. The most troubling reviews depict care that feels uncertain and transactional, with families bearing the burden of arranging supplies or contending with delayed nurse visits. Reports of processes that verge on unethical behavior or financial self-interest should not be dismissed, because they threaten end-of-life dignity and trust. Inconsistency across experiences, from overwhelmingly positive to seriously fraught, suggests an underlying variability in how care is actually delivered. The fear of being left waiting during critical moments or facing delays around death is a real, practical concern that colors the overall assessment of the program for anyone evaluating hospice options.

Pros offset cons only for families who can leverage the strengths while accounting for the risks. The strongest counterweight is the human touch: dependable education, transparent communication, and a care team that truly feels invested in the patient and family. For these households, caregiving burdens are eased by steady guidance and accessible professionals. But the same positives do not automatically overcome operational gaps when a crisis arises or when logistics feel opaque. Prospective clients should demand concrete guarantees, expected response times, a clear escalation path, and documented procedures around equipment, medications, and transfers, and compare those guarantees against other local hospice options to ensure alignment with the patient’s goals and the family’s expectations.

In short, Kindred At Home VI can be a solid fit for Edina families who prize warmth, ongoing education, and a demonstrably caring team, provided they can tolerate some variability in execution. It is not the right choice for households requiring impeccably predictable service, immediate crisis management, or transparent handling of equipment and transfers. For families who value the brand’s interdisciplinary approach and trust the clinicians delivering end-of-life care, this provider can offer meaningful support. A careful evaluation checklist, response times, staffing consistency, supply management, and transfer protocols, paired with comparisons to other local hospice options will ensure the decision aligns with the patient’s wishes and the family’s capacity to navigate potential administrative bumps.