Deanna Adult Family Care Home in Tampa, FL

Memory care communities with a similar price nearby

• from -$300 / mo

  Dorothy Cares Assisted Living Facility

  5 from 48 reviews

  $2,200 to $3,300 / month

  16.3 miles away
• from +$200 / mo

  Alafia Village

  5 from 11 reviews

  $2,700 to $4,000 / month

  12.7 miles away
• from -$300 / mo

  Mary Dunbar Assisted Living Facility

  4.9 from 36 reviews

  $2,200 to $2,800 / month

  7.8 miles away
• About the same

  Consuelo's Assisted Living Facility

  4.8 from 39 reviews

  $2,500 to $4,500 / month

  5.3 miles away
• from +$100 / mo

  Hilda's Home Care Alf

  4.9 from 31 reviews

  $2,600 to $2,800 / month

  9.5 miles away

Pros

• The facility is described as nice and clean.

Cons

• The people in charge were not very nice.
• They were verbally abusive.
• Patients were not allowed to eat inside; they had to eat outside regardless of the weather.
• Residents were left unsupervised on several occasions as caregivers left the premises.
• Night-time medications were missed because the caregiver wasnā€™t on the premises.
• The reviewer would not recommend this place.
• The care provided was terrible.
• A grandmother had a bed sore that went untreated.
• By the time they got to St Joseph's Hospital, the infection had reached her bones.
• The ER doctor said she was extremely malnourished.

Review

Deanna Adult Family Care Home in Tampa presents a setting that only families who value a small, home-like environment should seriously consider, and even then with eyes wide open. This community is best viewed as a place where daily life may feel comfortable on a surface level, but where the care delivery hinges on highly active family involvement to safeguard safety and quality. It is not the right fit for residents who require steady medical oversight, reliable medication management, or professional wound and malnutrition care. In short, this is a scenario where the family becomes an essential part of the care team, and where the lack of consistent on-site supervision can translate into meaningful risk if vigilance lapses.

On the positive side, the setting is described as clean and domestically arranged, which can appeal to families seeking a quieter, less institutional atmosphere. The appeal here rests primarily on the idea of a homelike environment rather than a clinical campus. For some residents, especially those who can tolerate a small-scale operation and who do not demand complex clinical services day-to-day, that warmth and simplicity can provide a measure of comfort. However, cleanliness and a pleasant ambiance do not compensate for fundamental gaps in care oversight and safety practices, so this pro is inherently limited in its protective value.

The weighty downsides are precisely where risk becomes real. Several reviews recount episodes of verbal abuse by those in charge, which is a red flag for emotional safety and resident dignity. Beyond interpersonal issues, there are acute safety and care deficiencies: residents reportedly left unsupervised when caregivers are not on the premises, medications occasionally go missed at night, and there are alarming medical consequences tied to neglect, untreated bed sores and severe malnutrition cited by a hospital ER team. An outdoor dining rule that forces residents to eat outside regardless of weather further signals a rigidity that can undermine comfort and routine, and underscores a lack of resident-centered adaptability. Taken together, these factors create a care environment where serious lapses in supervision and clinical standards are plausible rather than exceptional.

In weighing the pros against these cons, the advantages feel insufficient to offset the core risks. The attractive, homey feel does little to mitigate the reality that essential medical tasks, medication administration, wound care, nutritional monitoring, and timely responses to health concerns, appear at best inconsistent and at worst dangerously neglected. For families facing cognitive or physical health needs, the gaps in oversight can quickly erode trust and safety. The single best argument in favor of this setting, the comfortable ambiance, loses its meaning when resident safety and dignity are in jeopardy due to staffing and supervision weaknesses.

For anyone evaluating options, alternatives should be strongly considered if the priority is reliable, professional care delivered with accountability. Look for facilities with transparent staffing models, consistent medication administration protocols, on-site licensed nursing support, and documented wound and nutrition care plans. State inspection histories and verified care plans provide crucial reassurance that a community can maintain both safety and respect in daily operations. In particular, consider larger assisted living communities or memory-care environments where formal supervision, structured meals, and proactive medical oversight are standard, not exceptional.

The practical takeaway is clear. Deanna Adult Family Care Home may hold appeal for those who prize a home-like ambiance and are prepared to invest significant time and effort into advocating for a loved oneā€™s care. However, for families prioritizing consistent safety, respectful treatment, and reliable clinical care, it is wise to pursue stronger options first. Conductively, prospective residents should demand a thorough tour focused on caregiver-to-resident ratios, on-site nurse availability, medication administration processes, incident logs, and a current care plan addressing wounds and nutrition. If those assurances cannot be furnished, the prudent move is to explore alternatives and avoid aligning with a setting where safety and dignity hinge on vigilant family involvement rather than dependable professional oversight.