60 West Street, Rocky Hill, CT 06067
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of 60 West
Pros
There are caring staff members at 60 West.
Some staff are recognized as truly good and caring by residents.
The kitchen manager is doing his best and is new, with potential to improve.
Managers are making an effort to present a positive front.
There are activities that show resident engagement and life in the facility.
There are positive exceptions among the staff who stand out.
There are good people at the facility who contribute positively.
Cons
The reviewer wouldnât give the place five stars, and any stars are only for a few staff who care.
Staff routinely tune out the call bell, leading to 30â40 minute waits to use the bathroom.
Having a handicap is worsened because help comes from reluctant staff.
The problem mainly lies with the CNA level, even as managers try to present a positive front.
Residents are crammed three to a room that is designed for two.
The bathrooms are not wheelchair-friendly, especially the ones in the rooms.
The staffing ratio is about 1 good worker to 6 not-so-good workers.
Some cooks withhold food or fail to follow diet plans, indicating bad actors in the kitchen.
The agonal breathing incident woke nearby residents and was deeply disturbing, suggesting poor staff responsiveness.
Review
60 West in Rocky Hill is best for residents who can tolerate uneven caregiving quality and who want a small, staff-involved environment where a few devoted caregivers stand out. The community delivers a sense of familiarity when a handful of workers truly care, but it comes with a clear caveat: help can be inconsistent, and daily assistance may hinge on which staff member is on duty. Genuine commitment from some frontline workers and a kitchen team showing potential exist, yet the model does not deliver flawless execution. This is not a place for those seeking a uniformly smooth care experience; itâs a setting where occasional staff excellence can appear amid broader staffing and process gaps.
Those who require reliable, on-demand assistance, strong call-bell response, fully accessible private rooms, and consistently aligned dietary plans should consider alternatives. The current experience highlights long waits for help with basic needs, including bathroom use, and bathrooms in rooms that are not easily wheelchair-accessible. Room overcrowding, three residents in a space designed for two, substantially erodes privacy and safety. Noise and proximity to staff areas can disrupt sleep and quiet time. For families prioritizing predictable service, strict adherence to care plans, and a higher standard of daily living comfort, exploring other communities with higher staffing ratios, better ADA-compliant facilities, and enforceable resident-rights policies is prudent.
On the upside, there are identifiable positives that temper the overall impression but do not fully offset the main drawbacks. A cadre of caregivers is recognized for compassion and reliability, names such as Lisa, Gail, Britney, Claudia, Val, Cindy, and Marcia stand out as bright spots. Managers are described as making earnest efforts to preserve a positive environment, and there is movement in the kitchen leadership with a new manager attempting to sort out inconsistent cooks and align meals with prescribed diets. Activities exist, and some residents engage with them. These signals suggest improvement potential; however, they remain insufficient to counterbalance chronic staffing gaps and safety concerns in daily operations.
Safety and daily living are where the concerns become concrete. Call bells are not consistently answered promptly, leaving residents waiting 30 to 40 minutes for assistance, an unacceptable delay for those with mobility or incontinence needs. The physical layout compounds problems: rooms crowded beyond design, bathrooms that are not easily used by wheelchair users, and a setting where sleep can be disrupted by hallway noise. A distressing incident described as agonal breathing, loud enough to wake others, raises questions about monitoring, response times, and overall security. While shifts do not uniformly fail, the pattern of delayed responses and infrastructural misfits makes reliable, dignified care harder to count on.
For families evaluating 60 West, concrete steps can de-risk the decision. Request unannounced visits during peak hours to observe call-bell response and frontline care. Ask for current nurse and aide-to-resident ratios, and request to meet the CNAs who would typically care for the loved one. Inspect room configurations: is a private room possible, and are ADA-compliant bathrooms available or improvable? Inquire about dietary oversight and consistency with prescribed meal plans, and press for accountability on the kitchen team under the new leadership. Seek clarity on emergency protocols, responsiveness, and distress monitoring. If possible, seek current residentsâ references and request a trial period or clearly defined review milestones before committing.
The bottom line is that 60 West can work for families prepared to supervise care closely and tolerate variability in caregiving quality, with the hope that leadership changes and standout staff will drive meaningful improvements. For anyone whose loved one requires steady, timely help, predictable mobility support, and consistently accessible, private living spaces, alternatives are strongly advised. The community shows genuine care from a subset of staff and a kitchen team willing to improve, but that has not yet translated into reliably safe, comfortable daily life. Due diligence is essential: set explicit expectations, verify staffing stability, and weigh the potential for improvement against the risk of ongoing lapses before deciding to commit.





















Weight Training for Seniors: Building Strength and Vitality
Understanding the Sandwich Generation: Stress and Responsibilities for Multigenerational Caregivers
8 Essential Assistive Devices for Older Adults


