Cedar Ridge III in Schofield, WI

Memory care communities with a similar price nearby

• from -$340 / mo

  Applegate Terrace

  3.8 from 22 reviews

  $2,260 to $3,395 / month

  5.5 miles away
• from +$101 / mo

  Wellington Place at Rib Mountain

  3.7 from 26 reviews

  $2,701 to $4,840 / month

  4.8 miles away
• from -$103 / mo

  Cady Home West 1

  5 from 4 reviews

  $2,497 to $2,795 / month

  5.8 miles away
• from +$195 / mo

  Cady Home West 2

  5 from 4 reviews

  $2,795 / month

  5.8 miles away
• About the same

  Cedar Ridge I

  5 from 1 review

  $2,600 / month

  1.9 miles away

Pros

• The caregivers are amazing.
• The family is happy they chose Cedar Ridge for their mom, and she was cared for well.
• Cedar Ridge is a family-run business with a nurse on staff 24 hours a day.
• The family expresses gratitude for the care their mom received.

Cons

• The grandma was left on the toilet and had to scream for help, with no one responding.
• She was insulted and treated like a dog by staff.
• The facility rehired workers who had been fired for bad behavior.
• A staff member told the grandma she wasnā€™t her maid, despite being there to help.
• The dad did not receive the prescribed antibiotic, and the family had to clean him as his pants were full of waste.
• It took 45 minutes to obtain the asthma spray, and staff lied about the asthma despite medical history and the doctor.
• They do not follow doctor prescriptions, neglect nebulizer treatments, and provide no outside activities to engage him.
• There was a wait of over 30 minutes for someone to clean and bandage a cut on his arm.

Review

Cedar Ridge III in Schofield, WI is best suited for families that are willing to supervise care closely in a small, family-operated setting where caregivers may feel personally invested, but where staffing and accountability appear inconsistent. This community seems to attract households that value a home-like vibe and the notion of around-the-clock nursing on site, yet the reviews make clear that quality is conditional and highly dependent on management and daily oversight. For most families, this means proceeding with caution and expecting to take an active, sustained role in monitoring care, rather than assuming a stable, turnkey experience.

Pros that can matter in practice include what appears to be a dedicated, family-driven culture and the assertion that a nurse is on site around the clock in some accounts. Those elements can translate into more personal attention and quicker responses when staffing aligns. For families capable of demanding documentation, escalation when care slips, and consistent follow-through from leadership, these positives offer a tangible, real-world upside. Still, these advantages rely on stable, well-trained staff and reliable systems; without them, even the strongest goodwill evaporates under real-world pressures.

Cons that overwhelm begin with grave concerns about basic care and dignity. Multiple accounts describe residents being left in distress or treated disrespectfully, including reports of crying, being left unattended, and even abusive language. Other serious failures involve medical follow-through, prescriptions not given, delays in antibiotics, and neglect of doctor-ordered treatments. Sanitation and hygiene issues surface as well, with residents requiring family members to intervene for cleanliness, and with delayed responses to medical needs. A pattern of poor responsiveness, limited engagement activities, and weak communication consistently emerges as a core risk.

How the positives align with these flaws is crucial to interpretation. The family-run energy can fund a tight-knit operation that feels attentive, but without dependable staffing and formal accountability, that energy becomes fragile and insufficient. Registered nursing presence on site could help with medical tasks, yet it cannot compensate for systemic gaps in care coordination, timely interventions, and respectful treatment if the routines and escalation protocols are weak. In short, impressive individual staff stories do not outweigh repeated, institution-wide failures; risk remains high when oversight is inconsistent.

Before choosing, undertake a rigorous, action-oriented visit plan: verify caregiver-to-resident ratios and request recent incident reports, then review activity calendars and care plans with specific questions about daily hygiene, medication administration, and doctor-ordered therapies. Ask for direct conversations with multiple current residents or families about day-to-day responsiveness, and probe for staff turnover trends and training standards. Demand explicit timelines for medication delivery and wound care, and insist on transparent processes for addressing complaints and emergencies. If the answers raise red flags, compare this option with larger, professionally managed communities that publish clear staffing metrics and care-coordination protocols.

Bottom line: Cedar Ridge III warrants serious caution. It may suit families who can maintain vigilant oversight and value a small, family-driven vibe, but the weight of multiple red flags around neglect and medical mismanagement makes it a higher-risk choice for most seniors. For families prioritizing predictable medical coordination and staffing reliability, alternatives should be considered, larger, professionally managed communities with transparent staffing ratios and documented care processes. If this community is under consideration, approach it as a conditional option, demand concrete assurances, a defined corrective plan, and the willingness to switch promptly if standards slip. A careful, evidence-based decision remains essential to protecting a loved oneā€™s wellbeing.