16670 Franklin Trail South East #120A, Prior Lake, MN 55372
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Community Home Health
Pros
CAS delivered excellent care for 13 years.
The reviewer highly recommends CAS for more personal care than big-box facilities that are understaffed.
Potential clients are encouraged to check CAS out when seeking an assisted living home for a loved one.
Cons
The review describes the facility as horrible and under-staffed, with untrained and uneducated staff who must follow the owner's wishes or be fired.
It notes extremely high staff turnover, with RNs staying less than a year.
The food is described as awful and of very poor quality.
It alleges mistreatment and abuse, including morphine administered by non-medical personnel without gloves and long periods without bedding, nutrients, or bathing.
Personal belongings were missing after a resident's death, and room arrangements were mismanaged, with an oversized bed crowding the space.
It claims the bed cost over $9,000 and was assembled incorrectly, rendering its amenities unusable, and that the state overlooked these allegations.
The reviewer warns not to take a dog there and to stay away from Community Assisted Living Inc and Guardian Angels LLC.
Review
Community Home Health in Prior Lake is best suited for families that prize a small, home-like setting where caregivers know residents by name and care routines feel personal. The strongest positive voice describes years of attentive, individualized care that outshines what larger, corporate facilities can offer, suggesting a level of continuity and warmth that can be hard to find elsewhere. In practice, this environment tends to reward hands-on involvement from families and leaders who are willing to lean in to sustain a personalized approach. For households that value intimacy and steady relationships over glossy marketing, this community presents a compelling option worth a closer look.
That said, not every senior will thrive here, and several red flags argue for careful comparison with alternatives. For residents with complex medical needs requiring consistent clinical oversight, or for families needing clear, multilingual communication with nursing staff, this setting may fall short if staffed irregularly or inadequately trained. The most persistent criticisms center on high staff turnover, limited RN presence, and reports of leadership practices that some families found controlling or difficult to work with. As a result, potential residents should weigh whether the promised personalized attention can be matched by reliable clinical staffing and transparent governance.
On the upside, the core appeal remains the possibility of real, noticeable personal attention. A smaller facility can foster relationships where caregivers know routines, preferences, and warning signs of health issues earlier than a larger operation might. The narrative of a long-term commitment, years of care within a single home, suggests residents may experience less impersonality, more flexibility to honor individual preferences, and quicker responsiveness to day-to-day needs. When staff stability edges closer to a steady baseline, the advantages become tangible: predictable routines, faster help, and a sense of belonging that many families associate with a true home environment.
Yet the negatives are substantial and demand a cautious lens. Critics describe staff as insufficiently trained and insufficiently fluent in English, with turnover that disrupts consistency and erodes trust. Food quality and nutritional adequacy are recurring concerns, alongside troubling claims about medication handling, hygiene lapses, and neglect during end-of-life care. Operational friction surfaces in stories of forced room relocations, mismatched furnishings, and disputed billing or large one-time bed purchases. The involvement of a guardian-conservator company and reported state interactions add a level of governance complexity that requires diligent verification before any commitment.
Against these concerns, the path to informed decision-making lies in direct verification. Prospective families should insist on unfiltered access to staff on shift, request conversations with the administrator, and obtain recent survey or regulatory reports. If warmth and continuity are nonnegotiable, require concrete safeguards: regular RN coverage, clear medication protocols, transparent complaint processes, and an explicit plan for staffing shortages. A robust contract with defined responsibilities, inclusive of escalation steps, can transform a perceived risk into a manageable ongoing arrangement. In short, the balance hinges on whether the care culture can be maintained with rigorous oversight.
Ultimately, this community sits at a pivotal crossroads. It can be the ideal small-scale home where a loved one truly thrives on personal attention, or it can expose a mismatch for those demanding consistent clinical rigor and demonstrable governance. Families prepared to adopt a visit-and-verify approach, demanding strong staffing fluency, precise care plans, and transparent accountability, may discover meaningful value here. Conversely, those with higher care needs, memory-care demands, or prior concerns about care quality should widen the field and compare options with a critical eye toward staffing ratios, meal quality, and safety metrics. Schedule a tour, request current inspection summaries, meet the administrator, and bring a pointed list of questions to determine alignment with long-term expectations.







Funding and Affording Assisted Living: A Thorough Overview
Assisted Living Expenses and Long-Term Care Insurance: A Comprehensive Exploration
Securing Financial Support for Assisted Living: A Comprehensive Overview