411 Seventh Avenue Northwest, Arlington, MN 55307
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Good Samaritan Society - Arlington
Cons
The facility is absolutely horrible.- The staff are very rude and don’t care about the residents.
- They don’t clean rooms or bathe the residents.
- The staff are very disrespectful when visitors come to see residents.
- A nurse laughed at the grandmother during a serious incident.
- Staff put a wet cloth over a resident’s mouth.
- The facility is inhumane and needs to be shut down.
- The reviewers would not recommend the facility.
Review
This Arlington Good Samaritan is best suited for families whose options are severely limited and who can commit to close, ongoing oversight. The reviews depict a care environment where relatives must be prepared to intervene quickly, document concerns, and pursue external evaluation if trouble arises. In short, it is not a destination for seniors who rely on steady, respectful caregiving and clean, safe living spaces. The best fit here would be residents whose families act as consistent advocates, conduct regular visits, and demand immediate remediation whenever care lapses appear. Without vigilant oversight, the risks described by multiple observers escalate quickly.
Anyone prioritizing daily dignity, respectful communication, and reliable basic care should look elsewhere. Prospective residents with complex medical needs requiring steady hands and punctual hygiene services will likely find this facility inadequate based on the experiences shared. Families should screen for communities with transparent staffing, clear accountability for any abuse incidents, and demonstrable improvements over time. If the only feasible option is this campus, be prepared to supplement care through external aides, frequent nurse check-ins, and formal dispute-resolution channels. Alternatives with stronger reputations for cleanliness, courteous staff, and consistent bathing and room upkeep will deliver more predictable outcomes for residents who cannot advocate for themselves.
How the perceived pros stack up against the cons is telling. The facility sits within a well-known senior-care network, which can be a potential asset in terms of policy, resource access, and coordinated care. Yet in practice the positive aspects are not evident in the firsthand experiences shared. The core benefits families expect, cleanliness, respectful treatment, attentive personal hygiene, and safe, non-abusive interactions, are repeatedly undermined by severe negatives. Staff are described as rude and dismissive; basic routines like cleaning rooms and bathing residents are reportedly neglected. Any minor institutional advantages, such as programming or policies, are eclipsed by ongoing safety and dignity concerns. The balance tips decisively toward the cons for almost every resident needing help with daily living tasks.
Specific safety and care concerns dominate the narrative. Accounts describe staff applying a wet cloth to a resident’s mouth, which could constitute abuse; residents are said to endure disrespect and ridicule during serious moments. Multiple reports assert that staff fail to perform essential care tasks, including cleaning and personal hygiene, and that moments of levity or indifference punctuate critical incidents. Such patterns undermine trust and raise questions about true protection from harm. Even if some caregivers show kindness in isolated interactions, the frequency and severity of problematic behaviors suggest a systemic failure to prioritize resident safety. For a family weighing this option, these allegations translate into a high-stakes risk assessment rather than a marginal concern.
Guidance for families evaluating this option is practical and decisive. Observe firsthand during several visits and specifically watch how aides interact with residents, how promptly personal care tasks are performed, and whether rooms are clean. Request detailed incident logs, and ask about staff training, supervision, and turnover rates. Seek assurances about emergency protocols, and insist on a visible, reliable response plan if concerns arise. If any signs of neglect or mistreatment surface, escalate through the facility’s administration and local ombudsman, and arrange third-party assessments to corroborate impressions. Consider a transition plan in case new safety measures take time, such as arranging interim in-home care or identifying alternatives with proven, steady staffing and resident-centered cultures.
Bottom line: for seniors who require dependable care and a respectful living environment, this Arlington campus presents substantial risk and uncertain quality. The most prudent course is to pursue alternatives with clearer evidence of consistent cleanliness, compassionate staff, and reliable personal care. If choosing to investigate further, demand concrete improvements, verifiable staffing metrics, and a robust track record of addressing complaints. Until credible changes are demonstrated, the facility should be approached with caution and only after exhausting other viable options. Decisions should rest on measurable indicators of care quality, ensuring the chosen residence aligns with the resident’s needs for safety, dignity, and everyday well-being.
27 resident community capacity
Skilled Nursing Facility
Beauty salon
Cable or satellite TV
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Kitchenette
Move-in coordination
Outdoor space
Restaurant-style dining
Small library
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
24-hour call system
Activities of daily living assistance
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Medication management
Mental wellness program
Special dietary restrictions
24/7 supervision with comprehensive care and diabetes-friendly dining
Understanding the Nuances of Palliative Care and Hospice: A Comprehensive Exploration
Fecal Incontinence in Older Adults: A Comprehensive Guide
Nurturing Well-Being Through Gardening: A Detailed Guide for Senior Enthusiasts