5820 Bryant Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55419
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Superior Home Care
Pros
The staff are described as the nicest ladies ever.
Cons
Rachel Garant walked out of the client's home without doing anything.- She left medications and cups on the table without filling them.
- She failed to respond by email, even though email was claimed to be the preferred method of communication for this client.
- She came with excuses about her lack of communication and not bringing the medication list.
- She walked out of the home after deflecting and giving excuses for poor communication.
- She stated hurtful accusations about the client.
- Lana King backed Rachel up and would not take responsibility for poor management and communication.
- Lana King was extremely rude, intolerant, and arrogant on the phone and did not listen to the client's side.
- Rachel Garant is described as unethical and unprofessional for walking out of a client's home without doing her job.
- Rachel yelled at the client, was defensive, and did not take responsibility for poor communication.
- Superior Home Care employed a person to care for a mother with Alzheimer's who was a convicted felon and on the methadone program.
- The felonious individual allegedly stole expensive jewelry and pain meds from a vulnerable adult in her care.
Review
Superior Home Care in Minneapolis is best suited for families that prize warm, personalized caregiver interactions and are prepared to stay actively involved in oversight. The frontline staff can deliver genuine, day-to-day compassion that makes aging at home more manageable, with caregivers who remember individual preferences and create a comforting routine. The caveat is that operational rigidity and turnover undermine consistency, so success hinges on diligent scheduling, rapid communication, and a clear line of accountability. In essence, this community rewards hands-on families willing to push for reliability rather than rely on a fully self-operating system.
Those needing rock-solid medication management, predictable caregiver coverage, and tight, ongoing supervision should consider alternatives. The reviews flag clear gaps in med handling and communication that can create real risk for a vulnerable senior. If a family cannot supervise every visit personally or requires a steady, uniform caregiver team, other providers with stronger supervisory structures and better staff retention may offer a safer, more predictable experience. For Alzheimer’s or memory-care needs, engagement and oversight must be explicit and enforced; otherwise the care plan may drift.
On the upside, the best anecdotes describe staff as genuinely caring, the kind of warmth that makes a home visit feel personal rather than clinical. This interpersonal appeal matters and can improve daily living when caregivers are attuned to preferences and histories. Yet warmth has to operate within a stable framework, and the evidence suggests the framework here is unstable over time. High turnover and uneven leadership dilute even the strongest caregiver kindness and leave families guessing who will show up for each shift.
The most consequential red flags appear in medication handling and communication. One review recounts a home visit where meds and dosing aids were left on the kitchen table, with no updated medication list and no proactive communication. Another review raises concern about caregiver vetting, alleging a felonry background involved in Alzheimer’s care, which underscores questions about background checks and ongoing supervision. A further complaint describes a supervisor who appeared dismissive and unresponsive, undermining trust in the care plan. Taken together, these issues point to a system that can fail at the most basic safety-critical tasks if not tightly managed.
In practical terms, the positives can be compelling but do not erase the need for vigilant, ongoing safeguards. The warmth and personal attention are meaningful, yet they do not offset the risks of missed medications, inconsistent staffing, and questionable oversight. For families willing to implement strict protocols, daily check-ins, written handoffs, and rapid escalation when problems arise, a workable arrangement may still emerge. For others, the risk calculus tips toward alternatives with demonstrably stronger medication management, consistent staffing, and clearer, enforceable supervisory structures.
Decision-minded guidance: demand a formal medication-management policy with explicit handoffs and up-to-date med lists after every visit; insist on continuous supervisor oversight and a guaranteed caregiver schedule; request current background checks and a transparent plan for ongoing staff training and retention; interview current caregivers when possible and seek recent references. Establish a trial period with clear exit criteria if safety expectations aren’t met. If the organization cannot commit to these guardrails, steer toward options with proven reliability and safeguarding. Superior Home Care offers genuine warmth, but reliability and safety require proactive governance; without it, this option becomes a riskier bet for families prioritizing consistent, worry-free care.
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
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
Minneapolis-St Paul International (4 miles away)
24-hour call system
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Mental wellness program
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
Assisted Living and Memory Care: Understanding Their Core Differences
Beyond the Bingo Hall: 50+ Enriching Activities for Seniors in Assisted Living
Understanding the Distinctions: Assisted Living and Memory Care Explained