The Landmark Of Fridley

The experience of a family caring for their terminally ill mother while residing at Landmark has been nothing short of a harrowing ordeal. Following an abrupt hospitalization and diagnosis, the family's attempts to support their loved one were met with significant challenges from the facility. Landmark’s strict visitor ban during this critical time forced the family to make the difficult decision to remove their mother from the residence in order to provide personal care, which also meant unexpected job losses amid a struggling economy. In reaching out to Landmark for an appeal regarding rent credits?due to no services rendered during the mother's absence?the family sought compassion and ethical consideration from management during an overwhelmingly distressing period. The response they received was inadequately vague, as the executive director indicated that she was coordinating with the mother's power of attorney on "financial pieces," hinting at a possible credit without making any firm commitments. Unfortunately, it later became evident that no credit would be offered at all, exemplifying what appeared to be a deliberate misdirection by facility leadership in lieu of directly denying assistance. Compounding these financial frustrations were serious concerns over the quality of care provided at Landmark. On one particular evening in their mother's room, blatant medication errors occurred that could have jeopardized her health. A male aide erroneously claimed two vital medications had been cancelled by her primary physician and mismanaged communications about medication timings. Attempts by family members to clarify these discrepancies were met with defensive responses, leaving them further disheartened by the apparent lack of accountability or empathy demonstrated by staff. Moreover, when complaints about these incidents were formally submitted, they went largely unanswered or dismissed without thorough investigation?a promise made but subsequently rescinded just hours later. The executive director claimed that an internal review had already been completed and communicated results to one family member; however, inconsistencies in timelines raised alarms about the legitimacy and thoroughness of such claims. This baffling turnaround left caregivers feeling not only disregarded but also deeply frustrated by what they perceived as negligence. During this tumultuous series of events, further dissatisfaction arose concerning communication practices with families. After weeks without contact from staff during their mother's hospitalization?despite being assured there would be outreach?the family experienced additional letdowns upon contacting management for support upon her return. The executive director failed to express sympathy or acknowledgment regarding their plight while dismissively rejecting requests for modest rent concessions aimed at alleviating financial burdens caused by lack of services during their mother's absence. While it is acknowledged that some aspects of Landmark's operation exhibit potential?such as cozy accommodations and proactive emergency assistance from certain staff?it ultimately lacks effective leadership necessary for navigating crisis situations with genuine compassion and support systems in place. Issues ranging from food quality to call-response times indicate systemic flaws within operations that negate any positives experienced by residents and their families alike. For potential residents seeking assisted living options, vigilance is highly advised; Landmark's current trajectory indicates profound deficiencies in both service delivery and management responsiveness?all crucial factors when navigating end-of-life care scenarios amidst personal turmoil.