Cedarwood Senior Living in Homer, NY

Pros

• The staff tried hard to make it nice.
• The family atmosphere was nice.
• The facility was clean and felt very home-like.
• Visitors were impressed with the facility.
• The owners were kind and knowledgeable.
• The facility was located in a nice neighborhood that was pleasant to walk around.

Cons

• The staff turnover is extensive from top down.
• Health Department involvement occurred due to a major bedbug infestation, with a resident hospitalized after severe bites.
• Residents had no access to a phone to contact family.
• The stairway to the second floor is very hazardous.
• Cigarette smoking by staff and residents was the focal point.
• Many doors were absent and replaced by sheets.
• An administrator appeared to be wearing pajamas and was drinking coffee in a patient’s room.
• The rooms were badly soiled, with empty soda cans on the floor, urine containers left open and full, and residents with fecal matter on their hands.
• The staff and facility were not conducive to proper care, signaling that an intervention was needed.

Review

Cedarwood Senior Living in Homer, NY is best suited for families seeking a small, homelike setting where staff and ownership can feel personally involved, and where a quiet, neighborhood ambiance provides gentle walking options for residents. The facility has a crafted, family-oriented vibe that some visitors describe as welcoming, and the environment can feel warm in the right moments. For families prioritizing a familiar, intimate atmosphere over institutional polish, Cedarwood can seem attractive on first impression, especially when observed during calmer visits.

Those considering Cedarwood should explicitly assess whether any resident requires high levels of medical oversight, consistent staffing, or rigorous safety standards. The history behind the current reviews raises red flags for anyone with acute care needs, advance directive considerations, or heightened risk of infection and containment issues. The involvement of health authorities over a bedbug infestation, a hospitalization linked to bites, and repeated sanitation concerns signal a level of risk that few families can tolerate without a strong remediation plan and proven ongoing oversight. Alternatives should be on the table for seniors needing steady, professionally supervised care.

On the plus side, several reviewers highlight genuine warmth from the owners and a family atmosphere that can feel reassuring to residents and visiting families. When staff members connect with residents, the care feel can be meaningful, and the clean, home-like presentation in some visits stands out as a tangible strength. The neighborhood setting is also a plus, offering pleasant walks and a sense of belonging to a community rather than a purely clinical environment. These elements matter to quality-of-life decisions, particularly for residents who are most impacted by interpersonal dynamics and a sense of daily normalcy.

Yet the gravity of the cons cannot be understated. Extensive staff turnover undermines consistency, reliability, and continuity of care, leaving families uncertain about who will be present and how familiar staff will be with individual needs. The bedbug infestation and resulting health department involvement point to systemic sanitation and oversight lapses that risk resident safety and dignity. The most troubling scenes described, a resident hospitalized from bites, rooms left soiled, containers of urine and other unsanitary conditions, doors omitted or replaced by sheets, and even administrator appearances that erode confidence, signal operational instability that overshadows any positive experiences. The combination of hazardous stair access and ongoing smoking by both staff and residents further compounds safety concerns.

In weighing the pros against the cons, the positives offer emotional and aesthetic appreciations, but they fail to meaningfully offset the structural and safety risks present. A warm, family-style environment cannot compensate for repeated lapses in infection control, basic hygiene, or reliable staffing. For most families evaluating care for a loved one, the weight of the serious safety and sanitation issues will steer the decision toward other communities with documented, consistent oversight, cleaner records, and demonstrable improvements. Cedarwood may be considered only if a clear, verifiable remediation plan is in place, backed by ongoing monitoring by an independent, reputable operator.

When evaluating Cedarwood, pursue a candid, extended on-site assessment rather than a cursory visit. Require up-to-date health inspection records and concrete remediation steps tied to bedbug management, sanitation, and staff training. Demand to meet the current front-line caregivers and verify turnover rates, shift coverage, and responsiveness to emergencies. Inspect the second-floor stair access for safety compliance, confirm policies around smoking and resident autonomy, and confirm that residents have reliable access to communication with family. If the facility cannot present a credible plan and measurable targets for improvement within a short, defined timeframe, the prudent choice is to continue the search for a community with stronger safety, hygiene, and staffing consistency.