Ferndale Residential Care Fac

Pros

• They love the folks at Ferndale.
• It is a nice home, and the owner Janet is nice, treating everyone like her own children.
• They were helped even when there was no space available.

Cons

• Meals are not properly balanced and are served only when convenient for the staff's schedule.
• There have been safety incidents, such as a resident holding a knife to another resident's throat, with little action beyond firing the staff involved.
• The facility refuses to hire enough staff and does not treat staff well, leading to turnover and inadequate care.
• Residents are demeaned, spoken to rudely, and not treated with empathy; care is framed as a financial burden.
• The administration is described as toxic, with family involvement and owner interference.
• Resident property is frequently stolen, lost, or broken.
• Nutrition is poor, with no fresh fruit or vegetables and meals that are mostly canned, pasta, and starches.
• Residents are falsely accused of drug use based on false positives.

Review

The collection of remarks about the facility offers a troubling portrait of a place where residents and their families feel consistently let down on several core aspects of care. Across the different voices, a common thread emerges: meals, safety, staffing, and respectful treatment are the areas most frequently called into question, with numerous residents describing a pattern of neglect or indifference that undermines basic comfort and well-being. While there are a few positive notes, they sit alongside a chorus of complaints that suggest systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

Nutrition and daily living stand out as major concerns. Several reviewers say meals are not properly balanced and that eating is not reliably available on a schedule that fits residents' needs. One account laments that residents are only fed "if it is convenient towards there time schedule," and there are mentions of forced meal patterns that ignore issues like insomnia, anxiety, or depression. The criticism extends to the absence of fresh fruits and vegetables, a heavy reliance on canned goods and starch-heavy menus, and overall poor nutritional quality that many feel is detrimental to elderly residents. Complaints are sharpened by the sense that dietary decisions are driven more by convenience and cost than by resident health and preference.

Safety and incident response emerge as another major theme. Reviewers recount alarming episodes that were not promptly or effectively addressed, including a resident being held at knifepoint and the apparent lack of immediate intervention or consequences for the aggressor. Other notes describe a failure to take preventive action before conflicts escalate, contributing to long-term harm - such as an older resident who became permanently blind due to inaction in a dispute with another resident. The impression given is that danger signs are not being acted upon swiftly enough, leaving residents feeling vulnerable and unprotected.

Staffing levels and staff training are repeatedly flagged as insufficient and misaligned with resident needs. Several comments accuse the facility of refusing to hire more staff or of not properly supporting workers who would assist with basic daily tasks, such as grooming, room cleaning, or bathroom maintenance. There is a strong sense that staff are overextended and under-supported, which translates into perceived neglect and delayed responses to requests for help. Some reviewers accuse staff of mislabeling or shaming residents - whether about drug use, personal care, or other concerns - creating an atmosphere of mistrust and demeaning treatment rather than partnership in care.

The management style and administrative culture come in for sharp critique. A recurring line is that the institution is "all about the money" and that administrators are distant, punitive, or dismissive of residents' needs. The presence of family members of the owner within the facility is described as toxic and problematic by several reviewers, who say it interferes with professional boundaries and decision-making. There are multiple references to a lack of empathy, a tendency to talk down to residents, and a general sense of hostility or sarcasm in interactions with those who are supposed to be receiving care. In short, the administrative environment is portrayed as unsupportive, sometimes humiliating, and resistant to constructive feedback.

Property and trust issues further complicate residents' experiences. Some accounts describe belongings being thrown away, lost, or given away, contributing to a climate of insecurity and mistrust. The sense that residents' personal space and possessions are not reliably respected adds to the emotional toll of living there. Yet, amid the negative narratives, there are occasional glimpses of positive experiences: a resident notes that "the owner Janet is nice" and treats people like family, and another says the staff are "helpful even if they had no space." These lines suggest that not everyone experiences the same level of neglect, and that interpersonal warmth from certain staff or owners can provide rare relief in an otherwise challenging environment.

Interwoven with the harsher assessments are personal testimonies that reflect a spectrum of experiences. Some residents feel compelled to stay because there were few other options, painting a portrait of a facility that becomes a reluctant last resort rather than a preferred place of care. Others recall moments of genuine care or kindness that stand in stark contrast to the more damaging episodes described elsewhere. The conflicting sentiments - some calling the environment abusive or neglectful, others acknowledging occasional compassion from specific individuals - underscore a facility whose quality may vary widely by department, shift, or caregiver.

Taken together, the reviews sketch a facility whose challenges span nutrition, safety, staffing, and management, with negative experiences dominating the narrative. The stories portray residents who feel their basic needs - proper meals, timely help, safety, respectful treatment - are not reliably met, while administrative behavior and family involvement are perceived as obstructive or harmful to proper care. At the same time, there are hints that compassionate moments do occur and that some people within the operation do strive to offer genuine care, suggesting that improvements could be possible if the institution chose to address these systemic issues comprehensively.

Places of Worship

• Southern Baptist Convention (2.2 miles)
• Broadway Baptist Church (3.5 miles)
• City of Light and Life Ministries (3.6 miles)
• Missouri Ministries-Church-God (3.7 miles)
• First Baptist Church (4.1 miles)
• Church of God Vichy Campground (4.3 miles)
• St James United Methodist Church (4.6 miles)

Restaurants

• Country Bob's Cafe (3.4 miles)
• Sybill's St James (3.4 miles)
• Sonic Drive-In (3.7 miles)
• Ruby's Ice Cream (3.8 miles)
• McDonald's (3.8 miles)
• Subway (4 miles)
• Burger King (4 miles)

Physicians

• Doctors Office (3.6 miles)
• Forest City Family Practice (3.6 miles)
• DR Brent Caudill MD (4.4 miles)
• The Dermatology Center (6.5 miles)
• Heartland Cardiology (6.9 miles)
• Allergy & Asthma Consultants (7.4 miles)
• Wedgewood Dental: Linda Westmoreland , DDS (7.7 miles)

Pharmacies

• Forest City Pharmacy (4.4 miles)
• Health Mart Pharmacy (4.4 miles)
• Sinks Pharmacy (6.8 miles)
• Medley Pharmacy Inc. (6.8 miles)
• Sinks Pharmacy (6.9 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (8 miles)
• Walgreens (8.3 miles)

Cafes

• Firehouse Coffee Shop (4.5 miles)
• Starbucks (7 miles)
• The Purest Coffee (7.6 miles)
• The Giddy Goat Coffeehouse (7.9 miles)
• Scooter's Coffee (8.1 miles)

Parks

• St James Park Entry (4.7 miles)
• Splash Zone Waterpark (7.1 miles)
• Schuman Park (7.2 miles)
• Mark Twain National Forest (8.4 miles)
• Ridgeview Park (8.5 miles)

Theaters

• Regal Forum (6.6 miles)

Hospitals

• DaVita Rolla Dialysis (6.7 miles)
• Phelps County Regional Medical Center Medical Group (8.1 miles)

Transportation

• City Cab (7.7 miles)