Good Samaritan Society - Fontanelle

Pros

• The staff are very friendly and attentive.
• The food is good and nutritious.
• The physical therapy staff are very patient and work well with residents who have dementia and Parkinson's.
• The facility takes excellent care of residents, even when they are difficult.
• The caregivers are incredible, showing compassion and professionalism across housekeeping, dietary, CNAs, RNs, and social workers.
• Residents are treated with respect and dignity.
• Residents are treated like well-loved members of the family.

Cons

• The review notes a severe lack of personal hygiene care, calling it not acceptable and describing the living conditions as substandard.
• The review states that the staff is bad and the food is bad, and that some patients walk around asking for help and water.
• The reviewer warns that the place is terrible and urges others to steer clear and not send a loved one there.
• The reviewer claims the government is shutting this place down at the moment.
• The reviewer indicates they would think twice and look around before leaving a loved one at the facility.

Review

This community is best suited for families seeking a warm, person-centered care environment where staff consistently demonstrates kindness and attentiveness, especially for residents with dementia, Parkinson’s, or mobility challenges who rely on steady daily support. Fontanelle’s Good Samaritan Society location tends to excel when care hinges on meaningful human interaction, steady supervision, and a culture of respect that makes residents feel part of a family. Those who can tolerate occasional operational unevenness in exchange for genuine connection will likely find rooms to grow into here. Conversely, families prioritizing a uniformly flawless day-to-day environment, consistently rigorous hygiene standards, and a track record of consistently high performance should explore alternatives in the area to avoid misalignment with expectations.

The strongest draw is the caregiving team. Reviewers repeatedly describe nurses, CNAs, housekeepers, dietary staff, social workers, and therapy aides as caring, patient, and deeply committed to residents’ dignity. The tone from many families is that staff interactions are humane and heartfelt, transforming difficult days into moments of reassurance. Food and nutrition receive positive mentions as well, with residents and families noting nourishing meals that support daily health. Physical therapy is highlighted as well, with therapists who work patiently with residents facing cognitive or mobility challenges, contributing to functional maintenance and improvement where possible. When the team is operating at peak, the culture of compassion and competence shines through in tangible ways.

Yet a substantial portion of the feedback underscores serious concerns. At least one family removed a loved one after witnessing a severe lack of personal hygiene care and substandard living conditions, an issue that directly affects comfort, dignity, and health outcomes. Other voices describe inconsistent quality, with criticisms aimed at food quality, staffing reliability, and the overall experience of daily living. The most troubling notes center on short-staffing and uneven attention to residents’ basic needs, including timely assistance with incontinence and hydration. In a few reviews, there are references to regulatory scrutiny, signaling that failures in adherence or safety practices can arise, even if not universal across the facility.

These competing threads create real, actionable tradeoffs. For families prioritizing warmth, relationship-based care, and effective therapy, the positives can significantly offset the negatives if oversight by family members or care coordinators remains active and informed. The facility can deliver moments of genuine connection, respectful treatment, and meaningful support for daily living that many residents and families value deeply. However, the negatives, hygiene lapses, inconsistent maintenance of living spaces, and variable staffing, pose genuine risks that can undermine confidence and escalate stress when transitions or crises occur. The decision hinges on how much weight is given to personal interactions and therapeutic outcomes versus the certainty of consistent hygiene and day-to-day reliability.

To navigate this decision, prospective families should pursue an intentional, multi-visit assessment. Observe how staff engage with residents during peak activity and quieter times; ask how often hygiene needs are addressed in practice versus on a schedule; and request unit-specific information, especially for the skilled unit, to understand variance in care quality. Speak with multiple staff members, current residents, and other families to gauge consistency of experience. Inquire about staffing ratios, turnover, and the facility’s process for handling complaints or quality concerns. Review recent surveys or regulatory findings to understand ongoing risk areas. A well-rounded picture emerges through direct observation, corroborating accounts, and concrete care plans, not isolated anecdotes.

Bottom line: Fontanelle’s Good Samaritan Society is a credible option for families seeking a heartfelt, relational care environment that also provides meaningful therapy and nutritional support. It can be an excellent fit where the care team delivers consistent, dignified support and residents’ daily needs are met with care and respect. But for those who cannot tolerate hygiene lapses or inconsistencies in daily living conditions, exploring alternatives with stronger track records in these domains is prudent. The choice should rest on direct experiences, transparent processes, and a clear plan for maintaining resident dignity, safety, and well-being over time.