Frontier 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 1.0% vs 3.3% norm; Safety & falls 2.0% vs 3.6% norm; Staffing levels 2.2% vs 3.2% norm.

Most praised

friendly and helpful staff ×2warm, homey environment with kind, dedicated staffdevoted, compassionate team understanding dementia careprofessional friendly staff, clean, fun activitiesamazing staff and nurses, showed respectbest choice, stress reduced significantlystaff kind, responsive, excellent caresafe, friendly, helpful staff

Strongest themes: Staff attitude (546), Building & amenities (262), Activities (174), Cleanliness (100).

Most criticised

failures in care management and supervisionexecutive director mean nasty unethical managementunprofessional management and staffmanager hostile, short-tempered, dismissiveresident beverly was rude and judgmentaled rude and very unprofessionalneglect, harassment, unsafe, expired food, theft.murder incident; poor kitchen grade; high staff turnover; poor management

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	WA	4.8	10	4.30	29%	0	1
Community B	CA	4.6	8	4.75	14%	0	1
Community C	OR	3.6	7	4.29	14%	0	1
Community D	AZ	4.2	18	4.39	11%	1	1
Community E	TX	4.7	23	4.83	5%	0	1
Community F	CA	5.0	18	5.00	0%	0	1
Community G	ID	4.4	9	4.78	0%	0	1
Community H	IN	4.6	1	1.00	100%	1	0
Community I	OR	4.2	3	2.33	50%	0	0
Community J	TX	4.6	6	3.50	40%	2	0
Community K	OR	4.3	7	2.86	33%	0	0
Community L	TX	4.7	6	3.67	33%	0	0
Community M	NV	4.1	5	4.20	20%	0	0
Community N	OR	4.2	7	3.86	17%	0	0
Community O	IL	4.5	6	4.33	17%	1	0
Community P	TX	3.9	6	4.33	17%	0	0
Community Q	UT	4.0	6	4.17	17%	0	0
Community R	OR	4.5	8	4.38	13%	0	0
Community S	OR	4.5	20	4.20	11%	0	0
Community T	OR	3.9	11	4.64	11%	1	0
Community U	UT	4.9	27	4.70	9%	0	0
Community V	TX	4.6	17	4.76	9%	0	0
Community W	WA	4.5	14	4.71	9%	0	0
Community X	TX	4.6	23	4.43	9%	0	0
Community Y	FL	5.0	17	4.71	8%	0	0
Community Z	TX	4.9	12	4.67	8%	0	0
Community A1	TX	4.4	14	4.71	8%	0	0
Community B1	WA	4.3	17	4.65	6%	0	0
Community C1	OR	4.8	17	4.76	6%	0	0
Community D1	OR	4.8	18	4.78	6%	0	0
Community E1	TX	4.9	35	4.89	4%	0	0
Community F1	TX	4.6	35	4.69	3%	0	0
Community G1	TX	4.9	38	4.87	3%	1	0
Community H1	WA	4.1	34	4.68	3%	0	0
Community I1	TX	4.9	84	4.94	1%	0	0
Community J1	TX	4.9	34	5.00	0%	0	0
Community K1	AZ	4.9	25	5.00	0%	0	0
Community L1	MS	4.6	20	4.95	0%	0	0
Community M1	UT	4.7	18	5.00	0%	0	0
Community N1	NV	4.6	17	5.00	0%	0	0
Community O1	AZ	4.5	17	5.00	0%	0	0
Community P1	IL	4.6	15	5.00	0%	0	0
Community Q1	WA	4.8	15	4.93	0%	0	0
Community R1	NE	4.6	14	5.00	0%	0	0
Community S1	CA	4.6	11	4.91	0%	0	0
Community T1	MT	4.4	11	5.00	0%	0	0
Community U1	OR	4.2	11	5.00	0%	0	0
Community V1	WA	4.2	10	5.00	0%	0	0
Community W1	OR	4.0	10	5.00	0%	0	0
Community X1	WA	5.0	9	5.00	0%	0	0
Community Y1	OR	4.1	9	4.89	0%	0	0
Community Z1	CA	4.0	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community A2	OR	4.7	5	5.00	0%	0	0
Community B2	OR	4.4	4	4.75	0%	0	0
Community C2	WA	4.4	4	5.00	0%	0	0
Community D2	WA	4.7	3	5.00	0%	0	0
Community E2	CA	4.1	3	5.00	0%	0	0
Community F2	CA	4.6	3	5.00	0%	0	0
Community G2	CA	4.8	2	5.00	0%	0	0
Community H2	TX	4.4	1	5.00	0%	0	0
Community I2	CA	4.5	1	5.00	0%	0	0
Community J2	FL	4.4	1	5.00	0%	0	0
Community K2	OR	4.4	1	5.00	0%	0	0
Community L2	AZ	–	0	–	–	0	0

Falls and response times.

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

7 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: 1.01.

Community	Date	Rating	What happened	Signals	Injury
Community	2026-04-23	★★★★☆	Mother had recent fall; well cared for by physicians and staff; good communication; improved comfort.		—	view
Community	2026-04-08	★★★★★	Mom fell; staff called immediately with updates.		—	view
Community	2026-02-24	★★★★★	Excellent recovery from serious fall and fractures.		fracture/broken bone	view
Community	2026-02-19	★☆☆☆☆	Mother-in-law fell due to negligence; documented neglect and harassment.	slow response	—	view
Community	2025-12-27	★★★☆☆	Dad fell first night, hospitalized with complications.	found on floor	—	view
Community	2025-12-11	★☆☆☆☆	Mom fell and left on floor unattended by staff.	found on floor, not noticed	minor	view
Community	2025-09-30	★★★★☆	Husband with Parkinson's occasionally fell, staff communicated well, facility changed management frequently.		—	view

Waiting for help

“New to this facilty. Got here to visit family member and met 2 other families in the lobby that had been waiting an unusually long time for anyone to let them in. The instructions on the chalk board says follow prompts on reception desk. But all phones listed ring right back to the reception desk, unanswered. Unfortunate.”
★☆☆☆☆ · 2026-07-17 · Oak Hills Terrace Memory Care · 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 →

Frontier Senior Living.