Cedarhurst Senior Living — operator review report

Reviews month by month.

Reviews per month across all communities, with the month’s average rating

reviewsaverage stars

What families praise and what they criticise.

Every review was tagged for the themes it discusses and whether each mention is positive or negative.

Share of reviews with a negative mention of each theme

Bar = this operator. Tick = the portfolio norm across 116,177 reviews. Red bars sit clearly above the norm.

this operatorabove the normportfolio norm

Share of reviews with a negative mention — Responsiveness 2.0% vs 3.3% norm; Safety & falls 2.2% vs 3.6% norm; Staffing levels 3.3% vs 3.2% norm.

Most praised

staff went above and beyond ×2beautiful facility, friendly staff ×2beautiful facility ×2activities director welcoming, staff caring, beautiful warm buildingvery friendly, organized, residents' best interestsbeautiful facility, warm welcoming, engaging staffsafe caring place, kind director, residents welcomingamazing place, well taken care of

Strongest themes: Staff attitude (393), Building & amenities (189), Activities (114), Cleanliness (80).

Most criticised

subpar care despite high fees paidneed more sugar free food optionsmedication, staffing, communication failuresunderstaffed at night, poor trainingstaff directly responsible for mother's deathunsafe and unsanitary practices by staffunsanitary bathrooms; short staffed; poor servicesudden discharge threat with inflexible contract enforcement

Community by community.

Sorted by confirmed falls, then share of negative reviews. Community names are anonymised in the preview.

Community	Location	Google ★	Reviews 12 mo	Avg ★ 12 mo	Negative	Response complaints	Confirmed falls
Community A	MO	4.4	18	4.61	18%	1	1
Community B	MO	4.5	13	4.38	18%	1	1
Community C	IN	4.5	25	4.28	14%	2	1
Community D	MO	4.3	2	3.00	100%	0	0
Community E	IL	4.7	4	3.50	33%	1	0
Community F	OK	4.6	4	4.00	33%	0	0
Community G	IN	4.6	3	3.67	33%	0	0
Community H	IL	4.7	5	4.20	25%	0	0
Community I	MO	4.5	6	4.67	20%	0	0
Community J	GA	4.6	5	4.20	20%	0	0
Community K	MO	4.8	15	4.47	18%	0	0
Community L	MO	4.4	14	4.29	17%	0	0
Community M	WI	4.5	8	4.50	17%	0	0
Community N	IN	4.6	13	4.69	14%	0	0
Community O	WI	3.9	10	4.70	14%	1	0
Community P	MO	4.4	9	3.56	14%	1	0
Community Q	IN	4.9	7	4.43	14%	0	0
Community R	IN	4.4	15	4.40	13%	0	0
Community S	MO	4.7	24	4.46	13%	2	0
Community T	IL	4.5	19	4.58	13%	0	0
Community U	KY	4.7	10	4.60	13%	0	0
Community V	MO	4.8	24	4.67	11%	0	0
Community W	IN	4.5	21	4.71	11%	0	0
Community X	IN	4.2	9	4.56	11%	0	0
Community Y	IL	4.4	11	4.55	10%	1	0
Community Z	IL	4.8	10	4.60	10%	0	0
Community A1	GA	4.7	11	4.55	9%	0	0
Community B1	IN	4.6	20	4.80	6%	0	0
Community C1	IL	4.6	28	4.86	4%	0	0
Community D1	IL	4.9	27	5.00	0%	0	0
Community E1	KS	4.8	21	5.00	0%	0	0
Community F1	NE	4.8	21	5.00	0%	0	0
Community G1	IN	5.0	21	4.95	0%	0	0
Community H1	IN	5.0	18	5.00	0%	0	0
Community I1	KY	4.9	17	5.00	0%	0	0
Community J1	IL	4.6	13	5.00	0%	0	0
Community K1	IL	4.7	12	5.00	0%	0	0
Community L1	IN	4.9	12	4.67	0%	0	0
Community M1	IL	4.6	8	4.88	0%	0	0
Community N1	IN	4.6	7	5.00	0%	0	0
Community O1	NE	4.7	6	4.67	0%	0	0
Community P1	IL	4.7	6	5.00	0%	0	0
Community Q1	MO	4.8	6	5.00	0%	0	0
Community R1	MO	4.9	6	4.83	0%	0	0
Community S1	IN	4.8	6	5.00	0%	0	0
Community T1	IN	4.9	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community U1	KS	4.6	5	4.40	0%	0	0
Community V1	MO	5.0	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community W1	IL	4.8	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community X1	IL	5.0	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community Y1	KY	4.8	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community Z1	IN	4.5	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community A2	IL	4.7	4	5.00	0%	0	0
Community B2	NE	4.4	3	4.67	0%	0	0
Community C2	WI	4.4	3	3.67	0%	0	0
Community D2	IL	4.4	1	5.00	0%	0	0
Community E2	IL	4.2	1	5.00	0%	0	0
Community F2	NE	–	0	–	–	0	0
Community G2	KS	–	0	–	–	0	0
Community H2	IN	–	0	–	–	0	0

Falls and response times.

Reviews mentioning a fall were read and classified one by one; only confirmed physical falls are listed.

3 confirmed falls described by reviewers in twelve months; in 2 the response is described as slow or absent. Portfolio norm: 0.97 confirmed falls per 100 reviews; this operator: 0.61.

Community	Date	Rating	What happened	Signals	Injury
Community	2025-12-11	★☆☆☆☆	Family member fell, hit head, developed brain bleed; excessive resident-to-staff ratio and locked doors.	slow response	head injury	view
Community	2025-12-02	★☆☆☆☆	Multiple falls, unsafe walker handling, medical/DNR errors, poor accountability.		—	view
Community	2025-10-05	★☆☆☆☆	Father fell; family not notified; poor communication and oversight.	not noticed	—	view

Waiting for help

“They dont hire enough people to care for everyone. Not enough people watching.”
★☆☆☆☆ · 2025-10-04 · Cedarhurst Senior Living of Arnold · source

“I would never have used this facility if I knew then what I know now. There are too many residents to staff ratio. Residents are not being checked on and all the doors to the rooms are LOCKED all the time. A family member of mine fell hit her head and developed a brain bleed which toke her too”
★☆☆☆☆ · 2025-12-11 · Cedarhurst Senior Living of Springfield, MO Memory Care · source

“I came to visit my grandma a couple days ago. When I asked one of the caregivers who was on her phone for help, Jennifer said she would be right back with someone, but she never came back. I had to waive down another caregiver after minutes of waiting for someone to come back.”
★☆☆☆☆ · 2026-02-25 · Cedarhurst Senior Living of Woodstock · source

Full operator report

Unlock every community, named.

The preview anonymises communities. Register with your work email to see each one by name — ratings, complaint themes, response-time and fall mentions — plus a monthly refresh. Free for operators.

Rather talk it through with someone? Book a call →

Cedarhurst Senior Living.