1057 Land-Fields Lane, Williamston, NC 27892
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Fields Foundation
Pros
The place is getting better, and the food is good.- The staff is getting a lot better.
- It is a nice place.
- It is wonderful.
Cons
The place is the worst home ever and residents will be neglected.- Bed bugs, along with mice and rats, are present throughout the facility.
- Management and administration are described as trash and uncaring.
- The facility won’t take care of residents or their families.
- No bath towels or rags are provided to wash residents.
- The staff are slow, rude, and fail to do their jobs; issues go unaddressed for hours.
- The place should be shut down due to safety and care concerns.
- Residents have suffered bed sores and weight checks are reported as inaccurate.
- Staff are accused of covering up problems and not caring about residents or their belongings.
- The environment is dirty/nasty with old, broken beds and poor overall care.
Review
Fields Foundation in Williamston, NC is best suited for families that must operate on a tight budget and are prepared to supervise care very closely. This is not a hands-off option; the realities families should prepare for include ongoing concerns about cleanliness, safety, and staff responsiveness. For most families seeking dependable daily care, predictable quality, and a well-maintained environment, alternatives should be pursued. The decision calculus here centers on whether others will be able to fill gaps that the community appears unable to consistently address.
The bulk of the feedback paints a troubling picture: persistent neglect, management and administrative shortcomings, and a pattern of disengagement from residents’ welfare. Complaints repeatedly describe unsafe conditions, pests such as bed bugs and rodents, paired with a lack of basic supplies, like bath towels for personal care. Reports of residents not being bathed, weight and health monitoring being handled improperly, and excuses offered instead of action signal a systemic service failure rather than isolated incidents. The impression left is that care routines, supervision, and accountability are chronically insufficient.
A smaller strand of feedback notes that the facility has shown some positive movement, particularly around the quality of meals and some improvement in staff responsiveness. This serves as a reminder that not all days are uniformly adverse and that change is possible when oversight is persistent. However, these nuggets of progress are outweighed by broader patterns of neglect, exasperating delays, and a sense that management does not consistently address problems, which makes any supposed progress fragile and hard to rely on.
The key pro, food quality and, to a limited extent, improving staff attention, does little to offset the most consequential drawbacks. When residents’ health, safety, and dignity are at stake, the presence of bed bugs, the age and discomfort of beds, long wait times for basic care, and the theft or misplacement of personal belongings represent risks that families cannot ignore. Weight-tracking inaccuracies and documented staff concerns about care further undermine confidence in the facility’s ability to safeguard residents’ well-being over time. In practical terms, these are not minor irritants but meaningful indicators of ongoing quality and safety gaps.
For families still weighing the option, the next steps should be rigorous due diligence. Demand current, on-site confirmation of cleanliness and pest control practices; request to see a recent state inspection report and any corrective action plans; inquire about staff turnover, certification levels of direct-care workers, and the ratio of aides to residents during peak hours; and insist on a transparent system for incident reporting and response times. If considering a move, plan unannounced tours, speak directly with current residents and families, and sample meals alongside a live activity schedule. Above all, request a concrete, time-bound improvement plan with accountability milestones and a clear escalation path if progress stalls.
In sum, Fields Foundation carries significant safety and quality concerns that outweigh any potential benefits. Families with loved ones who require reliable care, proactive housekeeping, and respectful, timely staffing should look elsewhere and allocate time to evaluate stronger options. If this facility is being considered, it should be approached only with stringent monitoring, explicit assurances, and a commitment to root-and-branch performance improvements that demonstrably address the core failings reflected in the prevailing reviews.
6 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
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
Vibrant Senior Living: A Comprehensive Guide for Active Older Adults
When to Transition from Assisted Living to Memory Care: Key Indicators, Steps, and Finding the Right Community
Assisted Living and Memory Care: Understanding Their Core Differences