Avera Prince Of Peace - The Lofts in Sioux Falls, SD

Pros

• Avera POP is described as truly the best caregiver in the area.
• The PT staff is engaged in recovery and makes efforts to provide interaction for residents.
• The overall facility is described as of high quality.
• The administrator and director of nursing are nice and committed to ongoing improvement.

Cons

• The staff are very unprofessional; the nurses are rude, don’t help residents, and talk badly about residents in public.
• The social worker was significantly below expectations in setting up a forward plan and presenting options.
• The facility failed to respond to a resident’s call button for 25 minutes, leaving him needing the restroom.
• A resident was found asleep on the toilet, unattended.
• A patient was prescribed above-knee compression socks but never received them during the stay.
• The reviewer would not recommend this facility for rehab.
• Night shift staff are cruel and mean, they refuse meals, and the coordinator is vicious and defends the staff.
• Admissions staff won’t call back and the answering staff didn’t seem happy to be at work.
• There were drunk employees on shift, with vodka smell on a staff member and another seen stumbling in the parking lot.
• A fall occurred with no prompt response to the alert, and a nurse berated the patient in front of a family member; continued care was denied.

Review

Avera Prince Of Peace – The Lofts is best suited for families pursuing short-term rehabilitation where a dedicated therapy team and some staff engagement can facilitate recovery, and where ongoing oversight by family or a trusted advocate is part of the plan. The rehab unit, in particular, shows real effort from physical therapy staff, with therapists actively pursuing recovery goals and providing opportunities for social interaction. The administration and nursing leadership can be cooperative and present, but care quality appears uneven enough that constant family scrutiny is prudent.

Those considering alternatives should be alert to two realities. First, long-term residents or families seeking dependable daily care and consistently responsive staff may want to look elsewhere, given multiple reports of delayed responses, staff unfriendliness, and situations in which residents were left unattended or inadequately attended. Second, facilities that emphasize safety and continuous respectful care may provide a higher floor to stand on for ongoing needs. If a loved one requires rigorous supervision, predictable communication, and steady, compassionate day-to-day support, this community’s pattern of staffing and service inconsistencies makes alternatives worth weighing.

The strongest positives here are concentrated in rehabilitation. PT involvement is genuine, with active pursuit of mobility and recovery, and there are attempts to create social interaction amid therapy. A few staff members, particularly among administrators and some caregivers, are described as kind, engaged, and oriented toward growth. In rehab, those elements can translate into tangible progress and a more hopeful short-term experience if the patient’s stay remains focused on recovery goals and requires close family oversight to ensure the care plan is implemented. However, the benefits in rehab are largely offset by persistent concerns about bedside care and overall safety culture.

The main downsides, by contrast, are significant and consistently echoed across many reviews. Reports of rude or unprofessional nursing staff, careless behaviors, and repeated incidences where call buttons went unanswered or were ignored are stark reminders of a fragile safety net. Instances of residents being left unattended, such as being found asleep on the toilet or charting mistakes like incorrect compression socks, highlight gaps in basic routines that should be non-negotiable in any setting. The descriptions of understaffing, promises of responsiveness that don’t materialize, and even indications of staff intoxication are red flags that carry weight for families choosing long-term placement or expecting reliable daily care. These realities do not simply reflect temporary staffing hiccups but suggest systemic patterns that can jeopardize comfort, safety, and trust.

Practically, families should use a decision lens that weighs rehab potential against long-term safety and consistency. If rehab is the goal, demand clear, measurable goals, regular progress updates, and a guaranteed point person who coordinates with family. If long-term care is foreseeable, insist on visible staffing levels at all shifts, documented response times for call bells, and a transparent process for addressing concerns with administration. Prospective residents should visit multiple times, at different hours, and speak openly with current residents and families about daily routines, feeding, hygiene, and incident reporting. Require demonstrations of how mobility aides, medication administration, and safety checks are performed, and request to review a recent incident log to understand how concerns were resolved.

In the end, the decision hinges on risk tolerance and the certainty of oversight. The Lofts hold potential for rehabilitation success and some commendable staff members, but those gains are compromised by a troubling pattern of understaffing, inconsistent care, and emotionally charged encounters that undermine confidence in daily safety. For families prioritizing steady, compassionate care with predictable responses, this community may not be the best fit. For rehab-focused stays where vigilant advocacy is guaranteed and the care plan is relentlessly monitored, it could still be a viable option, provided a clear path to safety, accountability, and measurable progress is established before any commitment.