10315 Queensbury Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89135
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Adult Comfort And Care Home 2
Pros
The facility is described as decent and willing to work with families.
Cons
The reviewer describes the facility as horrible. - The mother-in-law was severely dehydrated and had a urinary tract infection.
- Kay Pannu allegedly let her lie in bed without contacting medical emergency.
- The mother-in-law was rushed to the hospital and stayed there for weeks.
- Medical teams, case workers, and social workers advised not sending her back to that home.
- The reviewer warns others not to entrust their loved ones to Kay Pannu’s facility.
- There was a lack of communication with the family, with multiple messages left unanswered.
- Staff reportedly threatened to remove the mother’s Social Security for not using the home, which is called unacceptable.
- The reviewer plans to report the matter to social services, Social Security, and Medicare.
- A lawyer is involved and the case is ongoing.
Review
Adult Comfort And Care Home 2 is best suited for families who need a low-cost option and are prepared to supervise care closely. This community does not stand out for medical redundancy or proactive safety oversight, so it should not be the first choice for residents with complex medical needs or frequent hydration and infection monitoring. It can work for families that can stay heavily engaged, set strict care expectations, and pivot quickly if concerns arise. Those relying on steady, transparent communication and on-site clinical oversight should look elsewhere.
The most alarming threads in the feedback involve a serious dehydration episode and a urinary tract infection that allegedly occurred while a family member was there for six weeks. Claims assert a failure to contact medical emergency promptly, culminating in an ambulance trip and weeks of hospital care. Medical, case management, and social work teams reportedly advised against returning to the home. When safety and timely medical response are in question, the facility’s core purpose, protecting residents’ health, comes under credible doubt. Such incidents cannot be dismissed as mere administrative hiccups; they strike at the heart of suitable assisted living.
A separate review credits the community as “decent” and capable of cooperation, but warns about persistent communication gaps. Families report having to chase answers, with messages left unanswered for days and late callbacks on weekends. More troubling still is a note about threats to the resident’s Social Security if the family did not use the home as the sole option. That combination, a willingness to cooperate at times paired with aggressive, high-pressure tactics, creates a trust deficit that undercuts any impression of reliable, compassionate care. In practical terms, collaboration without consistent, respectful communication is not a sustainable foundation for vulnerable seniors.
In weighing the pros and cons, the limited upside of a cooperative stance cannot counterbalance the main deficits. A facility that intermittently collaborates with families but cannot guarantee timely responses or dependable medical oversight is ill-suited for residents who depend on steady hydration, infection control, and crisis management. The positive note, staff or administrators who appear willing to work with families, may help, but it is insufficient when safety, transparency, and emergency responsiveness are at stake. For residents whose needs are modest and whose families plan to stay actively involved, there may be a narrow window of acceptability; for most, the risk-to-benefit balance tilts toward alternative options.
Families considering alternatives should prioritize facilities with strong medical governance, transparent incident reporting, and consistent communication. Key due diligence includes an in-person tour with candid questions about staff-to-resident ratios, 24/7 nursing coverage, access to a medical director, and written care plans that are reviewed regularly. Request to see recent incident reports, licensing records, and references from other families. Probe specifically about emergency response times, hydration protocols, and how changes in a resident’s condition are escalated. If safety, predictable communication, and medical oversight are nonnegotiables, redirect to operators with proven track records in those areas.
Bottom line: this community is a high-risk option for seniors who need reliable safety nets and unambiguous, proactive communication. It may be considered only for families who can provide intensive oversight, have legal or advocacy support, and are prepared to switch quickly if red flags resurface. For most families, especially those managing complex medical needs or who require consistent, transparent care, exploring other Las Vegas-area options with stronger clinical leadership and steadier family communication is the prudent path.
10 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
McCarran International (10 miles away)
24-hour supervision
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
Comprehensive Supportive Living Arrangements for Adults with Disabilities
Funding and Affording Assisted Living: A Thorough Overview
Assisted Living Expenses and Long-Term Care Insurance: A Comprehensive Exploration