Sinai Family Home Services

Pros

• Christie, the after-hours weekday staff, is great.
• There is a lot of good in the agency.
• Regular caregivers who work well with clients can make things pretty good.
• Sinai would actually try to match client and caregiver as best as they could.
• New office staff could bring change for the better.

Cons

• The agency gave caregivers very little notice before schedule changes.
• There was miscommunication or no communication between office staff and the client.
• The client had to hire private help because the agency failed to provide care, leaving the home dirty.
• The reviewer blames the office staff for the poor rating and says clients shouldn't be forced to accept incompatible caregivers.
• The scheduler repeatedly dropped regular caregivers and substituted others at the last minute, harming continuity.
• Complaints were met with petty repercussions, indicating a hostile environment for feedback.
• The supervisor defends the scheduler regardless of fault and does not address client concerns.
• The agency appears to prioritize the scheduler's preferences over matching caregivers to clients' needs.
• The agency frequently pulls long-term DHS clients' caregivers for other clients, leaving them unsupported.
• In two years, not a single fully competent caregiver was found; caregivers were described as irresponsible, negligent, undertrained, insensitive, rude, or argumentative.
• Caregivers often could not cook or clean properly and were distracted by their phones.
• Private information about other clients was sent via text, indicating privacy breaches.
• The reviewer would not recommend leaving loved ones in their care, especially for low-income or cognitively/mentally vulnerable clients.

Review

From the outset, the experience with Sinai Home Care started with what looked like real potential. A good caregiver came along in 2024, and for a while things seemed to be going well. But that smooth start quickly gave way to ongoing turmoil: miscommunication, last?minute schedule changes, and a revolving door of caregivers that left the client feeling overshadowed by the office's decisions rather than supported by a stable care plan. The situation deteriorated to the point where it became.clear that the provider's internal processes were inconsistent at best and aggressively unfavorable at worst, especially as it related to communication about who would be coming to help and when.

A central thread in the dissatisfaction is the office staff, particularly the scheduler and the supervisor. The reviewer singles out Toni, who took over as scheduler and began repeatedly dropping regular caregivers in favor of whoever happened to be available or deemed more suitable "closer" to a client's location. The stated reasons - caregivers no longer being available, or someone else being a better fit - were reportedly given with little to no advance notice, leaving the client and caregiver pair out of sync and the schedule in constant disarray. The pattern was described as monthly, with last?minute changes that deprived the client of stability and made it feel like the client's preferences and routine were being overridden by administrative convenience. The reviewer also hints at a bias against DHS (Department of Human Services) clients, suggesting that being on DHS might invite staff to deprioritize the client or "replace" them with private-pay caregivers, thereby affecting the quality and consistency of care.

The supervisor, identified as Rachael, is depicted as a backing voice for the scheduler rather than an advocate for the client. The reviewer recalls a meeting intended to address the complaint, which turned sour as the supervisor brought staff along and presented responses that felt unsympathetic or dismissive. The interaction left the client feeling that complaints were not valued and that the office culture rewarded defending the scheduler rather than fixing system failures. A notable moment described is how the supervisor responded to an issue about caregivers tracking mud onto carpet: instead of expressing a simple apology, the response focused on procedural fixes (shoe booties) rather than acknowledging the client's frustration. This tone - focusing on changes the client should make rather than addressing systemic issues - contributed to a broader sense that the office did not take client concerns seriously.

Beyond the interpersonal dynamics in the office, the client's day?to?day experience with caregivers was troubling. The client argues that reliable, competent, and compatible caregivers were hard to come by, even over a two?year period. Common complaints included caregivers who could not cook or clean adequately, were inattentive, or appeared more interested in their phones than in delivering care. The reviewer notes a pattern of being labeled "difficult" for raising concerns, a stigma that discouraged speaking up and seeking better matches. The chronic turnover - regular caregivers being replaced or withheld from long?term DHS clients - fueled a feeling that the agency prioritized its own scheduling needs over the client's consistent care plan and personal home life.

The reviewer's most painful anecdotes involve a long?term caregiver who was repeatedly described as controlling, gossipy, insensitive, and distracted by messages and calls. This caregiver reportedly altered tasks against explicit instructions, insisted her way was better, and reacted poorly to feedback. The allegations extend to privacy and trust issues: at one point, a prescription went missing, and communication with a caregiver about resolving the issue was not handled promptly. There are also serious concerns about confidentiality, including instances where private information about other clients was shared via text, suggesting that the agency struggled to maintain appropriate boundaries and protect client privacy.

A significant and emotional point of contention concerns how and when relationships with caregivers were altered. The client wanted to retain regular caregivers during a remodeling move, but Sinai sent a notice of termination with no clear explanation and without providing the stable caregiving continuity the client felt was essential. The sense that the agency could abruptly end relationships with long?standing caregivers in favor of new, possibly more lucrative private?pay arrangements added to the perception that DHS clients were not valued equally. The reviewer acknowledges that there are some positives - the after?hours staff member named Christie is praised - but these are overshadowed by a broader pattern of mismanagement, miscommunication, and a sense that the agency's leadership was more concerned with policy adjustments than with delivering compassionate, reliable home care.

In the end, the reviewer paints a stark picture: while some staff members may demonstrate competence and care, the systemic issues within the office - especially the scheduling practices, the supervisor's approach to complaints, and the inconsistent caregiver matching - create a fragile and unpredictable care environment. The accumulated experiences leave little room for trust, with a clear warning that the agency's current culture prioritizes efficiency and policy adherence over the personalized, consistent, and respectful care that a homebound client and their family rely on. The call is both a caution and a hopeful one - that with new leadership and improved staffing practices, there could be a path back to reliable care - but as things stand, the conclusion is that Sinai is not a dependable partner for families seeking steady, compassionate home assistance, particularly for low?income or cognitively vulnerable clients.

This part of Portland, Oregon offers a variety of amenities and services that may appeal to seniors looking for a convenient and comfortable living environment. With multiple pharmacies, physicians offices, and hospitals in close proximity, residents can easily access healthcare resources. The area also features a diverse selection of restaurants, cafes, and places of worship, catering to different preferences and dietary needs. Additionally, the presence of parks, theaters, and transportation options provides opportunities for recreation and exploration. Overall, this neighborhood offers a well-rounded community with convenient access to essential services for seniors considering senior living in Portland.

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (0.1 miles)
• Rite Aid (1 miles)
• Stone Age Farmacy PDX (1.1 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (1.7 miles)
• QFC Pharmacy (2.1 miles)
• Walgreens (2.7 miles)
• Rite Aid (2.8 miles)

Physicians

• Legacy Medical Group-Raleigh Hills (0.4 miles)
• Marshall, Katharine Providence Medical Group Saint Vincent (2 miles)
• The Portland Clinic (2.4 miles)
• Virginia Garcia Memorial Health Center (2.8 miles)
• One Medical (2.8 miles)
• Reflex (2.9 miles)
• Thomas D Kowalik MD - Orthopedic & Fracture Specialists (3.1 miles)

Restaurants

• Mandarin Palace (1.3 miles)
• Old Market Pub & Brewery (1.4 miles)
• Uwajimaya (1.5 miles)
• Chick-Fil-A (1.6 miles)
• Arby's (2.7 miles)
• 85 Degree C Bakery Cafe (2.7 miles)
• Five Guys Burgers & Fries (2.7 miles)

Places of Worship

• St John Fisher Church (1.6 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (1.7 miles)
• Panera Bread (2.9 miles)
• Well & Good Coffee House (3.8 miles)
• King's Hookah Lounge (4.1 miles)
• Aurora Coffeehouse PDX (4.6 miles)
• Dutch Bros Coffee (4.8 miles)
• Coava Coffee Roasters (4.9 miles)

Parks

• Florence Pointe Park (2 miles)
• Albert Kelly Park (2.1 miles)
• Spring Garden Park (2.6 miles)
• Fir Grove Park (2.9 miles)
• Terwilliger Playground (3.4 miles)
• Washington Park (3.7 miles)
• Tualatin Hills Nature Park (4.3 miles)

Transportation

• Sunset Transit Center (2.2 miles)
• TriMet Bus Stop ID 3655 (3.7 miles)
• Beaverton Creek MAX Station (4 miles)
• Amtrak (4.8 miles)

Theaters

• Century Theater Cedarhill (3 miles)
• Regal Pioneer Place (4.3 miles)

Hospitals

• Shriners Hospitals For Children (3.4 miles)
• Doernbecher Children's Hospital (3.4 miles)
• Portland VA Medical Center (3.5 miles)
• Legacy Good Samaritan Medical Center (4.1 miles)