92 communities in 11 states, 1,868 Google reviews in twelve months — how families rate this operator against 17,501 senior-living communities nationally.
Every review was tagged for the themes it discusses and whether each mention is positive or negative.
Share of reviews with a negative mention — Responsiveness 1.2% vs 3.3% norm; Safety & falls 1.0% vs 3.6% norm; Staffing levels 1.2% vs 3.2% norm.
Strongest themes: Staff attitude (1120), Building & amenities (614), Activities (455), Food & dining (272).
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 | CA | 4.1 | 14 | 4.36 | 17% | 1 | 1 |
| Community B | NC | 4.7 | 21 | 4.71 | 8% | 0 | 1 |
| Community C | AZ | 4.6 | 91 | 4.84 | 4% | 1 | 1 |
| Community D | CA | 4.8 | 5 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 1 |
| Community E | MD | 4.1 | 5 | 2.60 | 60% | 0 | 0 |
| Community F | WA | 3.8 | 12 | 3.83 | 33% | 0 | 0 |
| Community G | CA | 4.4 | 3 | 3.67 | 33% | 1 | 0 |
| Community H | VA | 4.1 | 12 | 4.33 | 25% | 0 | 0 |
| Community I | WA | 4.2 | 9 | 4.11 | 25% | 0 | 0 |
| Community J | CA | 4.4 | 5 | 4.00 | 25% | 0 | 0 |
| Community K | CA | 4.6 | 11 | 3.82 | 22% | 2 | 0 |
| Community L | MD | 4.7 | 17 | 4.24 | 20% | 1 | 0 |
| Community M | VA | 4.7 | 11 | 4.27 | 20% | 1 | 0 |
| Community N | VA | 4.7 | 17 | 4.53 | 18% | 0 | 0 |
| Community O | NC | 4.7 | 8 | 4.38 | 17% | 1 | 0 |
| Community P | CO | 4.2 | 14 | 4.14 | 15% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Q | UT | 4.8 | 9 | 4.56 | 13% | 1 | 0 |
| Community R | CA | 4.3 | 8 | 4.50 | 13% | 0 | 0 |
| Community S | WA | 4.5 | 12 | 4.67 | 11% | 0 | 0 |
| Community T | WA | 4.4 | 40 | 4.50 | 11% | 1 | 0 |
| Community U | AZ | 4.2 | 24 | 4.46 | 11% | 1 | 0 |
| Community V | AZ | 4.7 | 23 | 4.83 | 10% | 0 | 0 |
| Community W | CA | 4.5 | 16 | 4.25 | 9% | 0 | 0 |
| Community X | NC | 4.5 | 37 | 4.62 | 9% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Y | CA | 4.8 | 24 | 4.75 | 9% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Z | CO | 4.3 | 12 | 4.67 | 8% | 0 | 0 |
| Community A1 | CA | 4.9 | 17 | 4.71 | 8% | 0 | 0 |
| Community B1 | AZ | 4.8 | 16 | 4.56 | 7% | 0 | 0 |
| Community C1 | WA | 4.6 | 15 | 4.80 | 7% | 0 | 0 |
| Community D1 | NC | 4.5 | 18 | 4.78 | 7% | 0 | 0 |
| Community E1 | OR | 4.8 | 34 | 4.74 | 7% | 0 | 0 |
| Community F1 | CO | 4.7 | 22 | 4.64 | 6% | 0 | 0 |
| Community G1 | AZ | 4.8 | 19 | 4.74 | 6% | 0 | 0 |
| Community H1 | WA | 4.5 | 31 | 4.71 | 5% | 1 | 0 |
| Community I1 | NC | 4.7 | 25 | 4.84 | 5% | 0 | 0 |
| Community J1 | CA | 4.7 | 24 | 4.79 | 5% | 0 | 0 |
| Community K1 | NC | 4.5 | 29 | 4.86 | 4% | 1 | 0 |
| Community L1 | AZ | 4.7 | 27 | 4.81 | 4% | 1 | 0 |
| Community M1 | WA | 4.4 | 60 | 4.75 | 4% | 0 | 0 |
| Community N1 | AZ | 4.8 | 30 | 4.90 | 3% | 0 | 0 |
| Community O1 | AZ | 4.8 | 29 | 4.83 | 3% | 0 | 0 |
| Community P1 | UT | 4.5 | 40 | 4.78 | 3% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Q1 | CA | 4.9 | 84 | 4.88 | 3% | 2 | 0 |
| Community R1 | CO | 4.6 | 81 | 4.80 | 3% | 1 | 0 |
| Community S1 | OR | 4.2 | 42 | 4.74 | 3% | 0 | 0 |
| Community T1 | AZ | 4.6 | 103 | 4.93 | 1% | 0 | 0 |
| Community U1 | WA | 4.9 | 80 | 4.99 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community V1 | OR | 4.7 | 52 | 4.94 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community W1 | OR | 4.6 | 45 | 4.82 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community X1 | OR | 4.5 | 34 | 4.91 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Y1 | AZ | 4.9 | 29 | 4.97 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Z1 | AZ | 4.6 | 27 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community A2 | OR | 4.2 | 26 | 4.92 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community B2 | WA | 4.8 | 25 | 4.96 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community C2 | WA | 4.3 | 22 | 4.68 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community D2 | NC | 4.1 | 20 | 4.95 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community E2 | AZ | 4.6 | 18 | 4.94 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community F2 | NC | 4.4 | 17 | 4.71 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community G2 | WA | 4.4 | 16 | 4.63 | 0% | 1 | 0 |
| Community H2 | NC | 4.3 | 14 | 4.93 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community I2 | AZ | 4.5 | 14 | 4.93 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community J2 | AZ | 4.6 | 14 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community K2 | CA | 4.6 | 14 | 5.00 | 0% | 1 | 0 |
| Community L2 | WA | 4.5 | 13 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community M2 | GA | 4.5 | 13 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community N2 | WA | 4.8 | 13 | 4.85 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community O2 | CA | 4.4 | 12 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community P2 | NC | 4.4 | 10 | 4.90 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Q2 | CA | 4.5 | 10 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community R2 | WA | 4.8 | 10 | 4.90 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community S2 | AZ | 4.6 | 10 | 4.60 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community T2 | OR | 4.3 | 9 | 4.78 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community U2 | NC | 4.8 | 9 | 4.89 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community V2 | WA | 4.8 | 8 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community W2 | VA | 4.6 | 8 | 4.75 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community X2 | CA | 4.8 | 7 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Y2 | WA | 4.1 | 7 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community Z2 | OR | 4.2 | 7 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community A3 | CA | 4.4 | 7 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community B3 | CA | 4.3 | 7 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community C3 | NC | 4.5 | 6 | 4.33 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community D3 | CA | 4.6 | 5 | 4.80 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community E3 | CA | 4.6 | 4 | 4.50 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community F3 | CO | 4.8 | 4 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community G3 | CA | 4.5 | 4 | 4.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community H3 | WA | 4.5 | 4 | 5.00 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community I3 | WA | 4.4 | 3 | 3.67 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community J3 | CA | 4.7 | 3 | 4.67 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community K3 | CA | 4.5 | 2 | 4.50 | 0% | 0 | 0 |
| Community L3 | CA | – | 0 | – | – | 0 | 0 |
| Community M3 | CA | – | 0 | – | – | 0 | 0 |
| Community N3 | PA | – | 0 | – | – | 0 | 0 |
Reviews mentioning a fall were read and classified one by one; only confirmed physical falls are listed.
4 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: 0.26.
| Community | Date | Rating | What happened | Signals | Injury | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community | 2026-03-20 | ★☆☆☆☆ | Resident fell; alert device failed; found late. | found on floor, not noticed, call-system issue | — | view |
| Community | 2026-01-19 | ★★★★★ | Mother fell; excellent placement at caring facility. | — | view | |
| Community | 2025-09-28 | ★★★★☆ | Mother had stroke and bad fall breaking both arms; transferred to assisted living; satisfied. | fracture/broken bone | view | |
| Community | 2025-09-16 | ★☆☆☆☆ | Mother fell, left on floor extended time. | found on floor, slow response | — | view |
“Customer service on 07/23 evening - was transferred to a nurse and no response. Called front desk back 4-5 times after and no answer. Unable to be put in contact with my unresponsive mother. At least should have a better system in place or offer an alternative if transfer does not go through - people pay money and situations can be intense due to the reasons loved ones are in there.”
“The facility is nice but your loved ones will never get the care they deserve or are being paid to preform. Your concerns will be dismissed.”
“The service in the dining hall is terrible. Today I had to wait over a hour to get my ice-cream. The server brought me a cake first which I didn't request”
“Life at Cogir of Vallejo Hills is pleasant and wholesome. The facilities are well maintained. The greenery provides a beautiful and colorful comfortable environment all year round. The food served is delicious and varied although at times service is slow. I would highly recommend living in this community to family and friends.”
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.
Nobi lights make ordinary rooms smart: fall detection in seconds, two-way communication and nurse call, a log of staff visits and calls, and insight into how each fall happened — so the next one can be prevented. Privacy by design.
“What happens if my mom falls at 2 a.m.?” Communities that answer that clearly win the move-in — and write a different kind of review. See how Nobi communities say it out loud, on the tour and in the brochure.