Deerfield Care Center in New Richmond, WI

Pros

• The staff at Deerfield are professionals who do their jobs with love.
• The team came alongside the family every moment.
• The family trusted Deerfield with their most precious loved ones.
• They regarded Deerfield as the best place for loved ones.
• The staff are wonderfully caring and always there for the residents.
• It is a beautiful place with wonderful meals.
• The reviewer highly recommends this retirement senior living.

Cons

• They refuse to use the lift to assist residents.
• They discourage bringing loved ones who need proper care.
• They neglect residents needing bathroom assistance, leading to bed sores and morphine given to treat pain caused by lack of movement.
• They are comfortable with assisted death from dehydration, preferring oral morphine to sedate the client.
• Their practices are inhumane and have been reported to the state.
• They will force morphine while not forcing water, effectively hastening death.
• They do not listen to a patient’s refusals regarding drugs, but will claim life is being refused when water is refused.
• They were observed administering morphine and immediately leaving the room, not monitoring the patient as required by law.

Review

Deerfield Care Center in New Richmond, Wisconsin, is best suited for families that want a nursing-focused transition handled close to home, with a calm, home-like atmosphere and a caregiving team that is consistently present and emotionally attentive. It tends to appeal to households that value regular family communication, reliable daily routines, and meals that feel satisfying in a setting that feels approachable rather than clinical. For families navigating the move from independent living to skilled care, Deerfield offers proximity to loved ones and a culture that emphasizes staff warmth and personal attention. Those whose top priority is ironclad clinical safety, strict mobility protocols, and watertight end-of-life practices should consider alternatives with more transparent, documented oversight.

The strongest positives center on the human side of care. Reviewers repeatedly describe Deerfield’s staff as professional, compassionate, and genuinely attentive to residents’ needs, with family members feeling supported during extremely difficult moments. Families report being kept informed and looped into care decisions, and they praise the overall atmosphere as caring and responsive. Several comments highlight beautiful surroundings and good meals, suggesting a setting that feels welcoming and comfortable for residents who benefit from everyday continuity and a dignified daily routine. In moments of transition, particularly end-of-life care, the perceived empathy and availability of the team stand out as meaningful strengths.

Yet the drawbacks cited in reviews are significant and cannot be overlooked. Allegations center on a reluctance to use mobility aids, with concerns that insufficient movement leads to bed sores and a decline in residents’ condition. There are unsettling claims about dehydration and the use of sedative medications, including morphine, in ways that some families interpret as compromising patient autonomy or comfort. Additional remarks describe inadequate monitoring and purported noncompliance with legal and ethical standards, along with reports that staff may not always honor patient or family preferences when it comes to treatment choices. Taken together, these accounts suggest serious questions about the facility’s clinical safeguards and day-to-day oversight.

The key pros, compassion, accessibility, and open family communication, do offer meaningful value for many families, especially when a loved one benefits from a familiar, comforting environment and close caregiver relationships. These advantages can lessen the emotional burden of serious illness and provide reassurance that help is near when needs escalate. However, the strength of these positives is tempered by the severity and frequency of the care concerns raised. For residents requiring robust mobility support, rigorous prevention of pressure injuries, precise hydration management, and consistently monitored pain control, the negatives tend to erode confidence in the overall quality of care. Without verifiable improvements in clinical procedures and oversight, the benefits may not fully offset the risk.

Families evaluating Deerfield should pursue a proactive due diligence process. Arrange a candid conversation with a facility administrator and clinical leadership, request the latest state survey results and any corrective action plans, and tour with specific questions about lift usage, transfer protocols, wound-prevention strategies, hydration schedules, and pain management approaches. Demand current, individualized care plans and staffing ratios, and seek out recent resident and family references beyond formal communications. If satisfactory answers and verifiable practices cannot be documented, consider other options with stronger, demonstrable safeguards and transparent accountability.

In sum, Deerfield may be a practical choice for families prioritizing proximity, warmth, and ongoing family involvement, provided there is credible assurance of safety practices and responsive clinical oversight. For those whose primary concern is unwavering clinical safety, ethical end-of-life care, and enforceable standards, alternatives should be pursued until observable improvements in care delivery are evident. The decision should rely on direct engagement with the facility, corroborated by independent records, state surveys, and trusted firsthand accounts to guide a confident choice.