Gardens Assisted Living

Pros

• The staff was very welcoming when they stopped by for a tour with their father.
• They enjoyed speaking with the residents and staff on duty.
• This community seemed like a very comfortable place for dad.
• The staff was very knowledgeable and answered all questions, putting the family at ease.
• Other residents came up to the grandmother and spoke wonderful things about the community.
• The community is bright, cheery, and very clean.
• There are fun activities, and he is enjoying the social interaction.

Cons

• The facility is not a good place.
• The company pockets money from residents.
• Employees are stealing from residents.
• Residents are treated poorly and sleep in their own urine.
• Aides are constantly on their phones, ignoring their duties.
• The care is very poor and residents often have no supervision.
• The director did not act on families' concerns.
• Management does not care about staff and allows harassment; staff are unprofessional.
• There is a lack of communication with families; important information isn't shared (e.g., ER visits).
• The corporate office is unresponsive; messages left for months with no return call.
• A sign labeling showers as "bath/spa" was misleading.
• A family member claims their mother was pushed and they were not notified.
• The facility restricted family access to see residents.

Review

The collection of impressions from visitors and family members paints a decidedly mixed picture of The Gardens of Trent. On one end, several encounters emphasize warmth, hospitality, and reassurance. A number of people describe walking into the community and immediately feeling welcomed by staff and residents alike. First impressions matter to families evaluating care for a loved one, and for some visitors, the experience was exactly what they hoped for: a friendly, knowledgeable staff on hand, telltale signs of a bright and cheery environment, and a sense that their father or grandfather would be comfortable there. In these accounts, the staff are not only professional but are engaged in real conversations with the residents, offering reassurance as families navigate the daunting process of selecting care. The residents themselves appear to be active participants in the social fabric of the community, often stepping forward to share positive remarks about the place and its people, which further eases the concerns of newcomers.

Other narratives highlight a cohesive, customer-focused tone that permeates the experience of touring, even if the tour wasn't planned. Several reviewers emphasize the staff's knowledge and willingness to answer questions, which helps families feel at ease about the next steps in arranging care. In some instances, the environment is depicted as a supportive space where activities and social interactions are part of daily life, contributing to a sense of belonging and normalcy for residents. The combination of bright surroundings, cleanliness, and a friendly attitude among staff and residents creates a perception of a comfortable home-like atmosphere for their loved ones.

However, not all feedback aligns with that positive frame. A substantial portion of the reviews contains strong criticisms about the facility's operations and management. One reviewer explicitly stated a negative experience, saying they would give zero stars if possible and alleging a lack of willingness to accommodate family members' concerns, particularly around access to see a loved one. This account points to tension around authority and decision-making, suggesting that some families felt the management style did not align with their expectations for collaborative care. The sentiment conveyed is that communication gaps and a perception of rigid authority can erode trust during a process that already feels overwhelming.

Beyond individual disputes about how decisions are made, other reviews raise serious accusations about the day-to-day treatment of residents. Several claims allege financial improprieties and neglect, including accusations that funds are mishandled and that residents are treated poorly or left in uncomfortable conditions. Some reviewers assert that staff failures - such as being distracted by personal devices and neglecting duties - are ongoing problems. These statements are stark and troubling, and they carry the implied expectation that regulatory bodies should examine the facility's practices. While it's essential to acknowledge these uncertainties as reported concerns, they are presented as allegations by reviewers rather than proven facts.

The most intense critiques center on the perceived disconnect between families and facility leadership. Accounts speak of inadequate responsiveness from administrators, with examples ranging from delayed or absent calls back to families after serious incidents to broader worries about whether concerns are heard and acted upon. The sentiment in these comments is that the director and the corporate office may not be sufficiently accessible or responsive, especially in moments when families feel their loved ones' safety or well-being is at stake. The frustration in these stories underscores how critical transparent, timely communication is to maintaining confidence in a long-term care setting.

There are moments of nuance amid the broader tension. One reviewer shared a positive, almost humanizing moment: a vegetarian family member interacted with the nutritionist, who quickly adapted a plan to accommodate dietary preferences, even if the initial communication about those preferences hadn't been clear. The result was a plate of fresh fruit and vegetables that delighted the patient, demonstrating that responsive staff can still deliver meaningful care within the day-to-day routine. Another thread of commentary notes bright-spoken staff, clean facilities, and engaging activities that stimulate social interaction, suggesting that the community has the capacity to foster lively, reassuring environments for residents and visitors alike.

Taken together, these reviews sketch a landscape of high contrasts. For some families, The Gardens of Trent represents a welcoming, well-organized community with caring staff, pleasant surroundings, and opportunities for meaningful social engagement that together ease the transition into care. For others, the experience is fraught with concerns about governance, communication, and the safety and dignity of residents, with alarming allegations that invite scrutiny from oversight bodies and careful, on-site observation. This spectrum of experiences highlights a fundamental truth about evaluating care facilities: outcomes depend heavily on day-to-day interactions, leadership responsiveness, and the ability of staff to balance compassionate care with clear, open communication with families.

If you are considering this community for a loved one, the reviews suggest two guiding practices. First, arrange multiple visits at different times, including informal time with both staff and residents, to observe how team members respond to questions and how care routines are actually carried out. Second, ask pointed questions about governance, reporting channels, and escalation procedures - especially around concerns of safety, medical oversight, and communication during emergencies. It may also be prudent to verify current licensing and consult external sources such as state health departments or elder care ombudsmen if there are lingering questions about care standards or incident follow-up. In the end, experiences across these accounts emphasize that a thoughtful, informed approach - coupled with firsthand observation - offers the best path to determine whether a given community aligns with a family's values and expectations for care.