Lanrich Adult Foster Home

Pros

• The facility is described as great and among the best in Central Oregon.
• Staff quickly resolved a bed issue, showing positive attitudes and teamwork.
• The team went above and beyond to help a resident eat and feel supported.
• Management is praised as great and impressive.
• The facility is small with a home-like atmosphere and individualized attention to residents.
• Families observed that residents were well-received by staff and residents, and some residents improved and enjoyed life again.

Cons

• The reviewer notes that calls for help take 15?30 minutes, leaving residents to manage after surgery.
• The environment is described as loud and not clean, with residents' TVs loud and rooms resembling a cheap motel.
• The food is described as horrible and not fully cooked.
• The owners are accused of profiting, allegedly lining their pockets and making over $9,000 per person.
• Management is described as bullies, with chronic short-staffing and schedules controlled by management.
• Penny-pinching in staffing and dietitian scheduling to save money is criticized.
• The reviewer says they were not given a choice about placement and would have refused if given the option.

Review

This Central Oregon facility presents a tapestry of care experiences that runs from deeply touching moments of compassionate teamwork to pointed frustrations about staffing, management, and everyday living conditions. The collection of accounts paints a picture of a place that can feel like a welcoming, home?like community when things click, yet can also reveal serious gaps when systems are stressed. Taken together, the reviews reveal both the human warmth of many workers and residents and the harsh realities of organizational strain.

One of the most memorable positives centers on a moment when a resident's bed failed to function, leaving her unable to sit up to eat. A staff member explained that maintenance had been notified repeatedly and, although the maintenance person claimed he couldn't come because he was at a game, several care workers stepped in. In a coordinated effort, four female employees and one male coworker brought in a replacement bed, got the resident settled, and got her eating again. The staff's effort didn't end there; they helped her sit upright and had her laughing, turning a stressful situation into a moment of laughter and connection. The sentiment behind this story is clear: the team-wide response to a problem was seen as exemplary, underscoring a belief that the people working there are dedicated and deserve recognition - and fair pay - for the hard, demanding work they do. A note attached to this portion of the feedback says it comes from the wife of a resident who used someone else's device to post the review, highlighting the personal and family-centered perspective that runs through these stories.

The other side of the same coin is a deeply moving family narrative about a resident father who spent a year at the facility. The writer describes being struck by how well he was received by both staff and fellow residents, noting that he improved and was able to enjoy life again while there. This account emphasizes the emotional and practical benefits of a supportive community: attentive staff, opportunities for meaningful activity, and an environment that could contribute positively to a person's well-being. The family's gratitude is compounded by the later hospice experience and the peaceful passing of the resident in his own home, followed by the peaceful passing of his wife a few months earlier. These reflections speak to the role that the facility can play in meaningful life moments - both those that bring joy and those that accompany end-of-life care.

On a different, more critical note, a review written by the wife of another resident - the author notes that she wrote this from her own laptop and does not have a Google account - outlines a sequence of troubling operational challenges. She describes long wait times for calls for help, with responses taking minutes rather than seconds or a few moments. She recounts physical limitations following hip surgery, forcing her to navigate the facility largely on her own for essential needs. Additional concerns include a loud, disruptive atmosphere with televisions throughout the hallways and rooms, and food that she characterizes as not fully cooked and unappealing. She also criticizes the menu as outdated, the rooms as not fully clean, and a sense that the facility operates more like a traditional home than a rehabilitation center. She references the financial model, noting that the owners - identified in context as a parent company connected to Regency - take in substantial sums per resident, and questions whether the care and environment are aligned with patient recovery goals. This account conveys a sense of disillusionment and distress that can accompany a move into long-term care, especially when expectations of professional, attentive care feel unmet.

A separate, sharply negative review amplifies concerns about the quality of care and the organizational culture. The writer assigns a negative star rating and accuses management of bullying and of keeping the facility perpetually short-staffed. The claim is that schedules and daily operations are dictated by management rather than by clinical needs, which leads to chronic understaffing and a sense that frontline workers are not empowered to provide the level of care residents deserve. A particular grievance is that the resident care manager refuses to work as a direct aide, which the reviewer sees as emblematic of a broader pattern of penny-pinching and budget-driven decisions - especially in areas like dietician scheduling - that undermine the ability to provide comprehensive, attentive care. Taken together, this critique suggests a belief that financial considerations are prioritizing budgets over residents' well-being.

When these perspectives are read together, a nuanced picture emerges. The facility appears to be a place where remarkable acts of care and genuine warmth exist side by side with systemic strains - especially around staffing levels, management practices, and resource allocation. Instances of staff going above and beyond - and the resulting positive impressions for residents and families - point to a culture of compassion and teamwork in at least parts of the operation. Conversely, the negative experiences highlight real anxieties about response times, cleanliness, meal quality, and the overall environment, as well as skepticism about corporate ownership and its influence on frontline care. These tensions underscore how closely care quality is tied to both individual staff members' dedication and the broader organizational framework in which they work.

For families and prospective residents, the message from these accounts is clear: there can be meaningful, high?quality caregiving here, delivered with empathy and insistence on doing right by residents. At the same time, there are serious concerns that merit attention from leadership. Addressing these issues could involve improving maintenance and response times, ensuring consistent cleanliness and food quality, and aligning staffing and schedules with actual resident needs rather than purely budgetary calculations. It also suggests a need for transparent communication with families about care plans and facility improvements, and for management to demonstrate a commitment to supporting and valuing the staff who are on the front lines every day.

Ultimately, these viewpoints illustrate a facility with the capacity to cultivate comfort, connection, and genuine moments of relief for families under stress, but one that also faces challenges that can erode that trust when not addressed. The stories invite ongoing dialogue among administrators, staff, residents, and families about how to preserve the positive, person-centered care while strengthening the systems and leadership practices that support it. As with any long-term care setting, the path forward likely lies in balancing heartfelt, day?to?day compassionate care with thoughtful investments in staffing, environment, and organizational accountability.

This part of Prineville, Oregon, offers a convenient and peaceful setting for senior living. With a variety of places of worship nearby, including the Southern Baptist Convention and Grace Baptist Church, residents will have access to spiritual fulfillment. There are also several healthcare providers in close proximity, such as Pioneer Health Care Associates and Mosaic Medical, ensuring easy access to medical services. Residents can enjoy a leisurely cup of coffee at Angelina's Coffee Company or Foundry Four Coffee + Whiskey, or dine at local restaurants like Lamonta Roadhouse and Mazatlan Mexican Restaurant. The area also boasts beautiful parks like Ochoco Creek Park and Castle Park for outdoor recreation. Additionally, pharmacies like Rite Aid and Walgreens are conveniently located for medication needs. Overall, this part of Prineville provides a tranquil and convenient environment for senior living.

Places of Worship

• Southern Baptist Convention (0.7 miles)
• Grace Baptist Church (1.4 miles)
• Prineville Community Church (1.5 miles)
• Calvary Chapel of Crook County (1.6 miles)
• First Church Of God (1.7 miles)
• Good Samaritan Ministries (1.7 miles)
• First Landmark Missionary Baptist of Prineville (1.7 miles)

Physicians

• Pioneer Health Care Associates (1.1 miles)
• 7th Street Dental (1.4 miles)
• Cascade Direct Care (1.6 miles)
• Etosha Fegan, O.D - Prineville Optometry (1.6 miles)
• Central Oregon Eyecare - Prineville (1.6 miles)
• Mosaic Medical (1.7 miles)
• Mosaic Medical (1.7 miles)

Cafes

• Angelina’s Coffee Company (1.3 miles)
• Foundry Four Coffee + Whiskey (1.6 miles)
• Starbucks (1.7 miles)
• Friends Espresso (1.8 miles)
• Prineville Coffee Company (1.9 miles)
• County Line Coffee Company (10.5 miles)
• Dutch Bros Coffee (17 miles)

Restaurants

• Lamonta Roadhouse (1.4 miles)
• Mazatlan Mexican Restaurant (1.4 miles)
• Glacier Truck (1.5 miles)
• Dillon's Grill (1.6 miles)
• Horseshoe Tavern (1.6 miles)
• Crooked River Brewing (1.6 miles)
• Domino's Pizza (1.6 miles)

Parks

• Ochoco Creek Park (1.5 miles)
• Castle Park (1.5 miles)
• Crook County Parks & Recreation District (1.9 miles)
• Rimrock Park (2.2 miles)
• Crooked River Dog Park (2.5 miles)
• Smith Rock State Park (15.2 miles)
• Brasada Trails (15.7 miles)

Pharmacies

• Rite Aid (1.5 miles)
• Walgreens (1.6 miles)
• Clinic Pharmacy (1.6 miles)
• Redmond Pharmacy & Compounding Center (16.9 miles)
• Walgreens (17.5 miles)
• Rite Aid (17.7 miles)

Hospitals

• St Charles Prineville (2 miles)
• St Charles Medical Center-Redmond (16.8 miles)
• Family Choice Urgent Care (17.6 miles)

Transportation

• U-Haul Neighborhood Dealer (2 miles)
• Prineville Airport (PRZ) (4.6 miles)
• Leading Edge Jet Center (16.5 miles)
• Roberts Field-Redmond Municipal Airport (RDM) (16.9 miles)