
Regent Park Assisted Living & Memory Care
“Excellent care and service in all areas provided here at Regent Park Assisted Living. I could not be happier and love it here!” — Google review
We graded 7 companies on seven things customers actually report: satisfaction, reliability, workmanship, value, momentum, track record and how owners handle complaints.
From 2,316 Google reviews of 35 top-rated assisted living facilities nationwide; 7 of them in Park City, KS. Updated November 2, 2026.
Pick the job — we re-rank companies by how customers rated that exact job.
Experts Score 0–100Experts Score (0–100)Absolute quality first: recency-weighted star average (≈54%), share of 1–2★ reviews (≈24%), customers’ price verdicts (≈14%), owner replies to critical reviews (≈7%); minus up to 10 points each for complaints flagged in Google review highlights and for a real slide in recent ratings. Hover a company’s score on its page for the full breakdown. and a letter grade per factor (A = top 20% of assisted living facilities).
| # | Company | ScoreExperts Score (0–100)Absolute quality first: recency-weighted star average (≈54%), share of 1–2★ reviews (≈24%), customers’ price verdicts (≈14%), owner replies to critical reviews (≈7%); minus up to 10 points each for complaints flagged in Google review highlights and for a real slide in recent ratings. Hover a company’s score on its page for the full breakdown. | FactorsFactor grades, in orderSatisfaction (54%): Recency-weighted star average (2-year half-life), shrunk toward the category mean by review volume; the company’s own lifetime average as the prior; absolute: 4.0★ = 0, 5★ = 100.Reliability (24%): How rarely jobs go badly: share of 1–2★ reviews — 60% the last 24 months (or the 20 newest if fewer), 40% all-time; 0% = 100, 15%+ = 0; the category percentile can only raise it.Craft & service (0%): Google review highlights: Quality, Professionalism, Responsiveness, Punctuality — how rarely reviewers flag them as a negative, per review since highlights began; 0% = 100, 5%+ = 0. Subtracted from the score (up to −10), never averaged in — clean highlights are the norm, not a bonus.Value (14%): Customers’ own price verdicts (Great / Reasonable vs Overpriced) and Value highlights; 65% absolute (all “reasonable” ≈ 80, “great” = 100), the category percentile can only raise it.Momentum (0%): Penalises only a real slide: last-12-month average below lifetime (−0.5★ = 0). Still 4.8★+ over the last year, or steady/improving = 100. Subtracted from the score (up to −10), never averaged in.Replies to reviews (7%): How often the owner publicly replies to reviews under 5★ (1–4★). Needs 3+ such reviews, otherwise not counted; 65% absolute (80%+ replied = 100), the category percentile can only raise it.One letter per factor score: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39, F = below 20. | ★Google star rating as shown on Google Maps. | Typical billMedian bill customers of this company reported in their reviews (needs 3+ priced reviews). |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A 90How the Experts Score is calculatedEach factor is scored 0–100 on absolute terms (standing in the category can only raise it), then weighted; problems flagged in review highlights or a recent slide in ratings are subtracted:Satisfaction 69%91+63Reliability 31%88+27.1Experts Score= 90Not enough data for value, replies to reviews; its weight is shared by the others.Grade A: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39. Needs 10+ reviews. | AA––A– | 4.90 | — | |
| 2 | A 87How the Experts Score is calculatedEach factor is scored 0–100 on absolute terms (standing in the category can only raise it), then weighted; problems flagged in review highlights or a recent slide in ratings are subtracted:Satisfaction 55%90+49.1Reliability 24%95+23Value 14%58+8.2Replies to reviews 7%100+7.1Experts Score= 87Grade A: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39. Needs 10+ reviews. | AA–CAA | 4.90 | — | |
| 3 | B 76How the Experts Score is calculatedEach factor is scored 0–100 on absolute terms (standing in the category can only raise it), then weighted; problems flagged in review highlights or a recent slide in ratings are subtracted:Satisfaction 64%80+50.8Reliability 28%86+24.3Replies to reviews 8%16+1.3Experts Score= 76Not enough data for value; its weight is shared by the others.Grade B: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39. Needs 10+ reviews. | AA––AF | 4.75 | — | |
| 4 | B 65How the Experts Score is calculatedEach factor is scored 0–100 on absolute terms (standing in the category can only raise it), then weighted; problems flagged in review highlights or a recent slide in ratings are subtracted:Satisfaction 59%76+44.6Reliability 26%64+16.7Value 15%52+7.9Momentum penalty59−4.1Experts Score= 65Not enough data for replies to reviews; its weight is shared by the others.Grade B: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39. Needs 10+ reviews. | BB–CC– | 4.73 | — | |
| 5 | B 65How the Experts Score is calculatedEach factor is scored 0–100 on absolute terms (standing in the category can only raise it), then weighted; problems flagged in review highlights or a recent slide in ratings are subtracted:Satisfaction 55%69+37.6Reliability 24%59+14.3Value 14%78+11Replies to reviews 7%78+5.5Momentum penalty66−3.4Experts Score= 65Grade B: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39. Needs 10+ reviews. | BC–BBB | 4.65 | — | |
| 6 | C 53How the Experts Score is calculatedEach factor is scored 0–100 on absolute terms (standing in the category can only raise it), then weighted; problems flagged in review highlights or a recent slide in ratings are subtracted:Satisfaction 64%56+35.6Reliability 28%47+13.3Replies to reviews 8%49+4Experts Score= 53Not enough data for value; its weight is shared by the others.Grade C: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39. Needs 10+ reviews. | CC––AC | 4.50 | — | |
| 7 | D 39How the Experts Score is calculatedEach factor is scored 0–100 on absolute terms (standing in the category can only raise it), then weighted; problems flagged in review highlights or a recent slide in ratings are subtracted:Satisfaction 64%58+36.8Reliability 28%19+5.4Replies to reviews 8%84+6.9Momentum penalty0−10Experts Score= 39Not enough data for value; its weight is shared by the others.Grade D: A = 80+, B = 60–79, C = 40–59, D = 20–39. Needs 10+ reviews. | CF––FA | 4.55 | — |
What customers paid, from the price Google asks reviewers to report.
| Job | Low25th percentile: 1 in 4 customers paid less than this. | TypicalMedian of the bill customers reported in their Google review (Google asks reviewers for a price range; we use the middle of each range). | High75th percentile: 1 in 4 customers paid more than this. | FairOf customers who rated the price, the share who chose “Great price” or “Reasonable” rather than “Overpriced”. |
|---|
How the 7 assisted living facilities we rated in Park City, KS compare, and what customers praise most.
A = score 80+, F = below 20.
Average stars per company.
All price verdicts left with reviews.
Share calling it great / reasonable / overpriced.
Satisfaction (54%) — Recency-weighted star average (2-year half-life), shrunk toward the category mean by review volume; the company’s own lifetime average as the prior; absolute: 4.0★ = 0, 5★ = 100.
Reliability (24%) — How rarely jobs go badly: share of 1–2★ reviews — 60% the last 24 months (or the 20 newest if fewer), 40% all-time; 0% = 100, 15%+ = 0; the category percentile can only raise it.
Craft & service (penalty, up to −10) — Google review highlights: Quality, Professionalism, Responsiveness, Punctuality — how rarely reviewers flag them as a negative, per review since highlights began; 0% = 100, 5%+ = 0. Subtracted from the score (up to −10), never averaged in — clean highlights are the norm, not a bonus.
Value (14%) — Customers’ own price verdicts (Great / Reasonable vs Overpriced) and Value highlights; 65% absolute (all “reasonable” ≈ 80, “great” = 100), the category percentile can only raise it.
Momentum (penalty, up to −10) — Penalises only a real slide: last-12-month average below lifetime (−0.5★ = 0). Still 4.8★+ over the last year, or steady/improving = 100. Subtracted from the score (up to −10), never averaged in.
Replies to reviews (7%) — How often the owner publicly replies to reviews under 5★ (1–4★). Needs 3+ such reviews, otherwise not counted; 65% absolute (80%+ replied = 100), the category percentile can only raise it.
The 7 best-rated assisted living facilities in Park City, KS average 4.7★ on Google across 489 reviews. Regent Park Assisted Living & Memory Care has the top rating (4.9★), and Ascension Living Via Christi Village Ridge has the most reviews (233). Updated October 29, 2026.
7 companies that meet our bar: rated 4.5★ or higher on Google, with a meaningful review history (489 reviews combined) and currently operating. Request a call back and the company will phone you directly.

“Excellent care and service in all areas provided here at Regent Park Assisted Living. I could not be happier and love it here!” — Google review

“My mother has lived at The Regent for two years and we are very happy with the people and the facility. I live in Wichita, so I am there 2-3 times a week and familiar with what happens there. The Regent is top notch.” — Google review

“The new Senior Center is booming. It is a wonderful addition to our great city. And I have no idea whose decision it was to hire Maddie Orton but she is absolutely amazing. I could not think of a better ambassador…” — Google review
“8 years of wonderful memories with very excellent staff that whole time. Other staff came and went, and they were excellent also. There are always, in living anywhere, ups and downs but our family is very grateful…” — Google review

“I attended the hallway Halloween party at Brookdale. All the residents enjoyed seeing the kids and pets in their costumes. Smiles from everyone! Staff are very kind and attentive. A very friendly family atmosphere as…” — Google review

“Finding the "right fit" of a forever home for a loved one is a big decision for a family to make. Every time we visit Brookdale East, the staff welcomes all of us with warm smiles, genuine kindness, and a positive…” — Google review

“Golden Boomers has gone out of their way to make exceptional accommodations to make our good friend feel at home and cared for in the midst of his care journey. They have been accesibke for questions and any…” — Google review
We scan Google Maps for assisted living facility listings in and around Park City, keep only open businesses whose main category matches the service, and require a Google rating of at least 4.5 from at least 20 reviews. Companies are ordered by a confidence-weighted score that balances rating and review volume. We do not accept payment for placement.
Regent Park Assisted Living & Memory Care has the highest Google rating on our Park City list: 4.9 out of 5 from 63 reviews (as of October 29, 2026).
Ascension Living Via Christi Village Ridge has the most Google reviews among the companies listed here: 233, with a 4.5★ average.
Only open Park City-area businesses whose Google category matches the service, rated at least 4.5★ from at least 20 Google reviews. They are ordered by a confidence-weighted score of rating and review volume. Placement is never paid.