Manor Crest Apartments

Pros

• Everything was going well at Manor Crest initially.
• The aides promised to ensure she attended all of her medical appointments.
• There were conversations with the supervisor about her care.

Cons

• The manager and the two nurse aides exploited the resident's medical issues.
• They interfered with her care by causing testing to be delayed and pressuring her to mistrust her doctor.
• They attempted to obtain authorization to talk to her doctors and to change her physician.
• They showed a lack of compassion and prioritized control over the resident's well-being.
• Their actions contributed to the resident's health deteriorating and missing appointments.
• The APS agent failed to protect the resident or document the harm.
• The staff's conduct is described as driven by a paycheck rather than residents' welfare.

Review

A family's account of life at Manor Crest apartments reads like a cautionary tale about how a resident's medical needs can be sidelined by staff dynamics that mix care, authority, and fear. The family's mother had been a resident for a time, and early on everything seemed manageable. Then a turn of events centered on the building's manager and two WellPoint nurse aides, and the family began to feel that those entrusted with the safety and well-being of a vulnerable person were instead complicit in actions that put the mother at risk. The doctor's assessment - delivered through the family - was stark: the mother could not live alone. This clinical verdict became the focal point of mounting concern and a series of tense conversations with Manor Crest leadership, as the family pushed for protections that would keep their mother safe.

The first major flashpoint came when the manager and the two nurse aides visited the mother in her apartment. They asserted concerns about her ability to live independently, despite the doctor's clear determination otherwise. In those moments, the family says they repeatedly explained the doctor's order and even requested information about employing a live-in aide to ensure safety and medical oversight. The manager's response, according to the family, included a direct question to the mother: "Can you take care of yourself?" The mother, who had memory impairment, answered that she could manage - an answer the family interprets as having been used by the staff to justify stepping back from providing or arranging needed support. The family contends that the manager's line of questioning and the staff's subsequent actions amounted to pressuring the mother to accept autonomy she was not medically equipped to assume.

Complicating the situation was an evident attempt to influence medical decisions. The family describes a troubling exchange in which the staff allegedly invited the mother to come to the office so she could authorize speaking with her doctors and even authorize changing her doctor. They claim the manager and the aides implied that the patient should not trust the physician she was seeing, presenting a direct challenge to the patient's independent medical relationship. These moments have been described as coercive and as an affront to proper medical care, especially given the mother's memory challenges. The family says such interference was not only inappropriate but dangerous, because it undermined the consent and the patient?doctor relationship at a critical time.

A separate and equally alarming thread involves the planned medical testing. The mother had a colonoscopy and other screening procedures scheduled as part of her ongoing medical evaluation. The nursing aides reportedly promised to ensure she would attend all her appointments, reinforcing the sense that they were taking responsibility for her access to care. Yet in practice, the family says, those tests never occurred. The failure to complete scheduled diagnostic workups left a gap that, in their view, contributed to a deterioration in the mother's health. The family points to those missed evaluations as a concrete, harmful consequence of the staff's actions and the larger management approach at Manor Crest.

The family's efforts to seek help extended beyond the local staff and management to external oversight bodies. They recount involvement with Adult Protective Services (APS), which they say did not remedy the situation. An APS agent reportedly agreed that the manager and the two nurse aides should never have intervened in the medical decision-making process, but the agent did not take stronger disciplinary action or "write them up" in a way that would prevent a recurrence. The family contends that, despite the agent's agreement that misconduct had occurred, the practical protections for their mother remained insufficient, allowing a pattern of interference and harm to persist.

Frustration and fear culminated in formal appeals to federal and state authorities. The family says they contacted HUD and the Texas Attorney General's Office, seeking accountability and alleging negligence on the part of those involved. They insist that negligence charges should be filed against all who participated in harming their mother, and they call for a formal investigation into Manor Crest's practices. The sense of betrayal is palpable: the very people who were supposed to protect a vulnerable resident were described as having engaged in manipulative, coercive, and potentially harmful behavior.

In the family's view, the broader call is for accountability and reform within Manor Crest. They urge the owners to investigate what the manager and the nurse aides have really been up to, promising to share whatever findings arise; they argue that because Manor Crest receives federal funding, the funding should be used in accordance with the law and with proper standards of care and oversight. The family's appeal is framed as a plea for transparency, integrity, and an end to what they describe as a "swamp"-like culture that prioritizes loyalty to a select group over the safety and dignity of residents.

The message closes with a blunt warning to potential residents and families: do not move to Manor Crest. The mother's experience is cast as a cautionary example of a staff dynamic that granted the manager power without accountability, allowing favoritism and a lack of genuine compassion to flourish for those who were not part of "her little group." The reviewer reiterates the claim that the manager presented herself as an expert in everything, including trades like electrician and handyman work, while failing to provide the level of resident-centered care that a vulnerable person requires. The overarching sentiment is one of deep dissatisfaction and concern that the very environment intended to be a safe and supportive home had become, in their view, a source of harm.

Restaurants

• Subway (0.2 miles)
• McDonald's (0.2 miles)
• JumBurrito (0.2 miles)
• Jack In The Box (0.2 miles)
• Bush's Chicken (0.6 miles)
• Taco Bell (0.6 miles)
• Little Caesars Pizza (0.8 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (0.2 miles)
• Walgreens (1.5 miles)
• Good Neighbor Pharmacy (1.9 miles)
• Evans Prescription Pharmacy (1.9 miles)
• Bentley Hawley, Pharmacist - Texas State Business Network (1.9 miles)
• Walgreens (3.3 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (4 miles)

Physicians

• Westview Medical Clinic (0.3 miles)
• Weldon Butler MDS (1.6 miles)
• Golder Cat-Scan & Mri Center (1.7 miles)
• University Women's Center-Odessa (1.8 miles)
• Texas Tech Univ-Internal Med (1.8 miles)
• Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (1.8 miles)
• MCH ProCare Pediatrics (1.8 miles)

Hospitals

• Sienna Nursing And Rehabilitation (1.5 miles)
• Texas Tech Physicians of the Permian Basin-Odessa (1.8 miles)
• Continuecare Hospital At Medical Center Odessa (1.9 miles)
• Family Medicine Clinic on Golder (1.9 miles)
• Ector County Hospital District (2.6 miles)

Parks

• Casa Bella Park (2.2 miles)
• Memorial Gardens Park (4.2 miles)

Cafes

• Starbucks (3.3 miles)