Monsignor Bojnowski Manor in New Britain, CT

Skilled Nursing Facilities with a similar price nearby

• from +$145 / mo

  Suffield House

  4.3 from 58 reviews

  $1,890 to $2,500 / month

  23.4 miles away

Pros

• The staff provide wonderful care and kindness, treating residents with warmth and dignity as they help them recover to go home.
• They take very good care of residents, and the facility is very clean.
• The facility has excellent staff who focus on quality of care and treat residents as individuals.
• The place is great.
• It is a little gem in the heart of New Britain, with beautiful grounds and a small-family feel, staffed by hardworking people with good hearts.
• It has the potential to be much more.

Cons

• The reviewer states this place is absolutely horrible and cautions others not to send their family here.
• The scheduler and management are described as horrible.
• A healthcare professional reviewer alleges aides neglected, mistreated, and refused to provide essential care, with staff who were rude and unresponsive.
• The facility is said to lack cleaning, have poor teamwork, and show mismanagement.
• Residents were left waiting for basic needs, such as water, for hours and bells were ignored.
• Residents were forced to wear Depends for convenience instead of receiving proper assistance with bedpans or commodes.

Review

This community is best suited for families that prize hands-on, compassionate frontline care and a small-family feel, especially for residents pursuing short-term rehab or post-acute recovery where warmth and dignity from direct caregivers can make a real difference. The setting and atmosphere appeal to those who want a home-like vibe, a clean environment, and staff who will treat loved ones as individuals. It is not the right fit for families seeking flawless consistency in administration, tightly managed long-term oversight, or a facility with a proven, uniformly reliable care-management track record.

Those who may want to consider alternatives are residents with complex, long-term needs or those who require unwavering scheduling reliability and highly proactive management. The reviews repeatedly flag issues around the administrative side of care, scheduling, communication, and accountability, areas that directly affect safety and continuity of service. Families who cannot tolerate irregular follow-through, delayed responses, or abrupt changes in care plans should explore other options with stronger governance, clearer escalation paths, and a track record of steady, predictable operations.

On balance, the most convincing positives center on frontline care that feels sincere and respectful. Caregivers highlighted by families demonstrate warmth, patience, and a commitment to dignity in daily routines, and there are mentions of dedicated professionals like an occupational therapist and aides who treat residents as individuals. The facility’s cleanliness and grounds contribute to a reassuring physical environment, and several reviews emphasize a genuine sense of staff longevity and hard work. For families prioritizing direct, compassionate interactions and a hopeful, homey feel, these are meaningful advantages that can support recovery and comfort.

Yet the strongest cons, structured around operations rather than bedside care, often overwhelm the positive impressions. The most persistent complaints target scheduling and management: claims of rude or inattentive staff, delayed responses to requests, and a disconnect between care plans and frontline execution. Specific anecdotes describe bedside neglect, late or missed rounds, water and basic needs left unmet for extended periods, and the sense that staff turnover or outsource staffing undermines consistency. Some reviewers report coercive or inconvenient practices, such as wearing incontinence products by policy rather than providing prior assistance, which challenges the dignity of residents. The overall impression is a facility where good people can do good work, but systemic inefficiencies and miscommunication impair the resident experience and safety.

These pros and cons do not cancel each other out. The favorable frontline experiences show there is real capability within the staff to deliver respectful, person-centered care when supervision and processes align. However, the glaring and recurrent management gaps prevent a confident, worry-free long-term commitment. For families weighing this community, the math is straightforward: if a loved one’s needs lean toward rehabilitative care with reliable, consistent oversight and predictable scheduling, the risks tied to administration may outweigh the benefits of the warm, individualized bedside care. If, instead, the priority is securing a visibly caring staff and a pleasant environment with the chance of positive days, Monsignor Bojnowski Manor can still be a viable option, provided a plan is in place to monitor care closely and address any lapses immediately.

Practical next steps are essential. Prospective residents and their families should arrange multiple visits at different times of day to observe how rounds are conducted, how quickly calls are answered, and whether caregivers appear supported and able to follow care plans. Ask to meet the administrator or director of nursing and request recent, specific examples of corrective action taken after past complaints. Review the staffing mix and scheduling practices, and request a detailed outline of how emergency or night-time needs are handled. Clarify what constitutes a rescue plan if a resident’s condition worsens and how discharge planning is coordinated with families and outside providers. If opting in, insist on written care plans, daily progress notes, and a direct line of escalation for concerns.

In the end, Monsignor Bojnowski Manor presents a mixed proposition. For families who can tolerate variable administrative performance in exchange for a warm, respectful bedside approach and a clean, home-like setting, there is meaningful value here. For those whose priority is unwavering governance, rapid problem-solving, and consistently reliable long-term care, alternatives with stronger governance and proven track records should be the default starting point. The decision hinges on weighing the appeal of compassionate, attentive day-to-day interactions against the durability and clarity of the care-management framework that will sustain a loved one over the long haul.