Overall sentiment in the reviews is predominantly negative, with several serious complaints about misrepresentation, unsafe conditions, financial disputes, and poor communication, tempered only by recent reports that new ownership is attempting to address some problems.
Care quality and resident safety: Multiple reviews raise grave concerns about the standard of care and resident safety. Reported issues include an unsafe care environment, persistent urine odor throughout the home, and an inappropriate patient mix that suggests residents’ needs are not being matched or managed appropriately. One review describes a highly traumatic relocation for a fragile parent and notes that a father died two weeks after the move; while cause is not specified, the timing contributes to a narrative of inadequate care and stressful transitions. These accounts point to systemic care-quality problems that families should consider seriously.
Staff and customer service: The reviews consistently criticize customer service and communication. Families report a lack of information during the initial inquiry, misrepresentation regarding licensing and insurance coverage, and unresponsiveness when attempting to resolve financial or care concerns. Several reviewers claim the facility falsely represented its licensing/certification status and that staff or management provided misleading information about which insurance companies would cover care. There are also accusations that refunds are being refused or delayed despite short stays and deposits being taken.
Facilities and environment: Complaints about the physical environment include an ongoing urine odor throughout the home, an indicator of insufficient housekeeping or hygiene standards. The mention of safety concerns tied to the new ownership suggests that changes in management may have initially worsened conditions or left oversight gaps. However, new ownership is also described as planning property improvements, which could address some facility problems over time.
Management, finances, and compliance: A major theme is alleged misrepresentation by management around licensing, certifications, and insurance participation. Reviewers claim the facility was not contracted with any insurance companies they expected, that claims about compliance were false, and that families were charged rent or had deposits withheld despite very short stays. This has created significant financial and trust-related disputes. One review notes the new owner is working on insurance issues with a target resolution by January, indicating at least an intent to remedy administrative and contractual problems.
Activities and resident life: On the positive side, reviews mention that activities are offered for residents, and the new owner is viewed positively in terms of bringing energy and plans for improvements. These points suggest that day-to-day life may have some engaging elements and that there is potential for improvement under current management.
Overall assessment and patterns: The dominant pattern is serious dissatisfaction tied to initial misrepresentation, inadequate communication, possible regulatory/insurance noncompliance, and environmental/clinical safety concerns. These are compounded by financial disputes (deposits, rent for short stays, withheld refunds) and at least one highly distressing personal outcome reported by a family. Offsetting these negatives are recent, isolated positive notes about a new owner who is described as ‘‘great,’’ with concrete plans to renovate the property, provide activities, and resolve insurance issues by January. That suggests potential for improvement, but the severity of the reported problems—especially those impacting resident safety, hygiene, and financial transparency—warrants caution. Prospective residents and families should demand clear, written confirmation of licensing and insurance participation, inspect the physical environment in person, ask for references or recent inspection reports, and obtain explicit refund and contract terms before committing.
