Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed, with strong and repeated praise for individual staff members, therapy outcomes, and social/dining aspects, alongside serious and recurring concerns about safety, consistency of care, and facility management. A substantial portion of reviewers highlight the compassion, responsiveness, and competence of frontline caregivers and therapists: residents are often described as being treated like family, staff learn residents' names, and several specific employees (notably a CNA named Connie Griffes and caregivers Andine and Wick, plus transition coordinators Diane and Heather) are singled out for exceptional, reassuring care. Many accounts describe successful short-term rehabilitation experiences — effective therapy, regained strength, and timely discharges — making the center attractive for post-surgical or short-term rehab stays. Reviewers also frequently cite enjoyable meals, personalized dining, engaging activities, outings, celebrations, and a generally welcoming, home-like atmosphere in common areas.
Counterbalancing those positives are multiple, serious negative reports that suggest inconsistency in quality and potential safety risks. Several reviews allege neglectful behavior ranging from residents being left in soiled briefs for hours to delayed responses when patients were in distress. There are allegations of untreated wounds leading to infection and sepsis, and at least one report links a sequence of events to a tragic outcome. Other safety-related complaints include medication mistakes, stolen personal items (phones and clothing), and staff inattentiveness or disorganization (nurses chatting at the station, poor night monitoring). These reports point to systemic issues in some shifts or units where standards of care appear to lapse, producing harm or near-harm situations for vulnerable residents.
Facility and operational concerns are mixed as well. Several reviewers praise cleanliness and describe airy, well-kept rooms, while others report urine smells, unclean rooms, and persistent infections. This suggests variability in housekeeping and infection control practices. Some reviewers explicitly note that the center is better suited to short-term rehabilitation than to long-term custodial care, with statements that long-term care quality is poor despite good rehab services. There are also comments about outdated fixtures (carpeting needing a facelift) and occasional deficiencies in basic responsiveness (ice water requested repeatedly but not provided; poor phone responsiveness). Administrative experiences vary: some families appreciate management visibility and bedside visits, fast discharge paperwork, and helpful guidance, while others express distrust of management integrity and distress over end-of-life decision handling.
Taken together, the pattern that emerges is one of significant variability: the center can and does provide excellent, compassionate, and effective short-term rehabilitation and has many devoted employees who create a family-like environment and engaging programming. However, there are repeated and serious reports of lapses that raise red flags for long-term placement — including neglect, infection control failures, medication and theft incidents, and inconsistent staffing practices. For prospective residents or families, these reviews suggest the facility may offer strong rehabilitative care and standout caregivers but that due diligence is important before relying on it for sustained long-term care. Specific steps families might consider (based on themes in the reviews) include asking about staffing ratios, shift-to-shift consistency, infection-control and wound-care protocols, medication-administration safeguards, security measures for resident belongings, recent state inspection reports, and arranging unannounced visits at different times of day to assess consistency of care and responsiveness.