Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized but leans strongly negative. Many reviewers describe severe problems with basic care, hygiene, communication, and administration; others praise individual employees and certain services. The most recurrent and serious complaints involve alleged neglect (residents not turned, left in soiled diapers, not checked for elimination), development or worsening of bed sores, and reports that nurses or aides frequently fail to respond to call lights. Multiple reviewers explicitly describe the facility as filthy, with persistent unpleasant odors, and rooms characterized as small, prison- or jail-like. These accounts are often tied to claims of staffing shortages and poor oversight by administration.
Care quality and clinical services are a central area of concern. Several reviews state the facility lacked adequate rehabilitation equipment or services, placing patients on prolonged bed rest instead of providing active rehab. There are repeated allegations that clinical and nursing staff can be inattentive or rude, and reviewers specifically report incidents such as failure to notify families when a resident was rushed to the emergency room, inaccurate or withheld information about a resident's condition, and even allegations connected to resident deaths. Conversely, a subset of reviews highlight attentive nursing staff who "go above and beyond," individualized attention, and long-term residents who feel safe. This contrast indicates significant inconsistency in the standard of care experienced by different residents.
Staff behavior and management communication are also heavily criticized by multiple reviewers. Complaints include rude social workers or administrators, unhelpful reception, frequent unreturned phone calls, long hold times, and instances of lying to families or failing to return belongings. Several reviews mention incorrect referral paperwork or misdiagnoses, implying coordination and record-keeping problems. At the same time, specific employees in different roles (nurses, reception, janitorial) are called out as "friendly," "helpful," and "hardworking," suggesting that positive experiences are tied to particular staff rather than systemic facility strengths.
Facility environment and dining: numerous reviewers describe the facility as dirty, with constant odors and an overall prison-like atmosphere. Rooms are variably described as gloomy or very poor in condition. Dining complaints include poor meal quality and failure to accommodate dietary preferences or restrictions (e.g., being served fish when not appropriate). However, some families describe a more home-like atmosphere and appreciate weekly grocery trips or personalized services, indicating that certain units or teams may provide a more residential-feeling experience.
Activities and family experience are mixed. A few reviewers praise the activities and exercise programs as "awesome," and some families report that staff arranged errands like grocery shopping and catered to individual needs. Long-term residents or their families in some cases report satisfaction and a safe environment. But these positive reports are overshadowed by numerous accounts of poor moving-in experiences, staff forgetfulness, lack of follow-through, unwanted or intrusive phone calls, privacy issues, and misidentification of residents.
Patterns and notable concerns: the reviews collectively suggest high variability in care and operations, with a troubling number of serious allegations about neglect, hygiene, and communication breakdowns. Staffing shortages are a recurrent theme linked to missed care and poor cleanliness. Several reviewers explicitly call for state intervention, and at least one account ties the facility to a resident death under concerning circumstances. Because the positive feedback tends to single out individual staff members or isolated services, while negative feedback points to systemic failures (cleanliness, staffing, administration), the overall impression is an inconsistent facility where outcomes depend heavily on which staff members are on duty and which unit a resident is placed in.
For prospective families evaluating this facility, the reviews indicate a need for caution and detailed vetting. Essential follow-ups based on these patterns would include: checking recent state inspection reports and deficiency histories, confirming current staffing levels and turnover, verifying availability of rehabilitation services and protocols for preventing/monitoring skin breakdown, asking about communication protocols for emergencies and family updates, touring multiple rooms/units at different times to judge cleanliness and odors, and requesting references from current long-term residents or their families. The mixed nature of the feedback means some residents and families have had positive experiences, but the frequency and seriousness of the negative reports—especially those alleging neglect, poor hygiene, and communication failures—are substantial and warrant careful, specific questioning before placement.
