Individual Care of Texas Inc in Quinlan, TX

Assisted Living communities with a similar price nearby

• from +$500 / mo

  AvilaCare Senior Living

  4.9 from 38 reviews

  $4,500 to $5,500 / month

  19.3 miles away
• from -$420 / mo

  Brookdale Summer Ridge

  4.4 from 141 reviews

  $3,580 to $4,925 / month

  18.2 miles away
• About the same

  Garland Serenity Home

  4.6 from 28 reviews

  $4,000 to $4,500 / month

  23.5 miles away
• from -$400 / mo

  Lakeshore Assisted Living and Memory Care

  4.3 from 125 reviews

  $3,600 to $5,000 / month

  17.5 miles away
• About the same

  New Haven Assisted Living & Memory Care of Wylie

  4.2 from 56 reviews

  $3,995 to $8,800 / month

  22.2 miles away

Pros

• The care is excellent and the setting is quiet.
• The facility feels like home.
• The homecooked meals are awesome.
• The staff are really caring and helpful.
• The residents are happy and content.
• It offers a peaceful environment.
• It is a great place for those in need of assisted living.
• The facility is clean, full service, with kind and professional staff.
• It provides a very safe environment.
• The staff goes the extra mile for their patients.

Cons

• The staff is very rude.
• ICOT is described as a horrible place to live by a resident.
• The food is the worst the resident has ever eaten, and the portions are tiny.
• Most of the staff have missing teeth and talk about their drug use.
• The housekeeping and the laundry staff are thieves, and the management is inadequate.
• The resident's belongings were stolen, and management does nothing.
• There are two large holes in the walls of the resident's room and a cable cord sticking out of the ceiling.
• Residents can go out only 14 days a year, and cannot have any pets.

Review

This community is best suited for seniors who want a modest, homey atmosphere with attentive daytime staff and a quiet, low-stimulation setting. It thrives for residents who prioritize a safe, contained environment over high-end amenities or a bustling social calendar. The emphasis is on basic assisted living with a personal, intimate feel rather than resort-style programming, making it a reasonable fit for those who value consistent routine, approachable staff, and a residence that feels like a small, supervised home.

Those considering alternatives should note several red flags that may matter more than the appeal of a quiet, home-like floorplan. If meals and nutrition quality are non-negotiable, this facility may disappoint, reports range from solid home-cooked options to outright dissatisfaction with food quality and portion sizes. If accountability, security of belongings, and transparent management are priorities, the allegations of theft and insufficient follow-through on complaints warrant serious scrutiny. If residents require frequent outings, pet freedom, or a more robust activity schedule, the limited outside time and pet restrictions will likely push families toward other options.

On the upside, the strongest pros centre on care quality delivered in a calm, clean setting. Residents and families repeatedly describe excellent, attentive care and a peaceful atmosphere, with staff who are caring and helpful and a facility that feels safe. Several reviews highlight a homey, basic environment where the basics, cleanliness, routine, and a sincere, if uneven, level of support, come together in a way that can reduce stress for residents who thrive on predictability and a stable daytime staff presence. For caregivers seeking a “less crowded,” more personal experience, these positives can be meaningful anchors.

The principal downsides are substantial and nontrivial. Complaints about rude or disengaged staff in certain shifts, inconsistent meal quality, and small or unappealing portions recur. Beyond food and demeanor, there are serious concerns about maintenance and safety, walls with holes, exposed wiring, and the implication that repairs lag or are not promptly completed. Allegations of theft within housekeeping and laundry, coupled with management’s slow or dismissive responses, undermine trust and complicate decisions for families who must protect personal belongings. Outdoor access and pet prohibitions further limit the quality-of-life options for some residents.

Those pros and cons must be weighed in light of a practical framework: the care quality and homey ambiance offer meaningful value to residents who prize stability and a nurturing daytime staff, while the outlays of risk in safety, security, and meal consistency temper expectations. When the heart of care is the personal touch and a quiet, predictable environment, these strengths can offset some frustrations, provided management remains responsive and incidents are not recurrent. For residents with complex medical needs, high social activity demands, or a strong emphasis on security and predictable, varied meals, the balance tilts away from ICT.

Bottom line: this community can be a solid choice for families seeking a basic, residential feel with genuinely caring staff and a safe, quiet setting, especially if peace of mind and low-stimulation living are priorities. However, potential residents should enter with eyes wide open about inconsistent meals, uneven staff interactions, limited outings, and the serious questions surrounding accountability and repairs. Before deciding, arrange unannounced visits, probe how staff handle complaints and losses, request meal samples, inspect room conditions, and clarify how belongings are safeguarded. If these assurances align with expectations, ICT may fit; if not, it is prudent to continue the search for a facility with stronger consistency in meals, staffing, and governance.