Overall sentiment in these reviews is predominantly negative with a few isolated positive notes. Multiple reviewers raise serious concerns about the quality of medical care, facility safety, cleanliness, staffing behavior, and management responsiveness. While some reviewers describe individual staff members as friendly and note that the owner was initially personable, these positives are overwhelmed by recurring and severe complaints that suggest systemic problems.
Care quality and medical management are among the most serious themes. Reviewers report multiple instances of feeding tube mismanagement and at least one instance where medications were given orally despite NPO (nothing by mouth) orders. One review describes a resident who died during a stay under circumstances that the family found questionable: hospice evaluated the resident twice, reviewers allege possible overmedication, and no autopsy was performed. These details indicate concerns not just about day-to-day care but about clinical decision-making, medication administration, and the facility’s handling of acute or end-of-life events.
Staff and communication issues appear repeatedly. Several reviews describe caregivers as unfriendly, disrespectful, or inclined to blame residents for problems. There are also reports of language barriers that interfere with care and communication between staff, residents, and families. At the same time, some reviewers specifically note friendly staff members; this suggests inconsistency across shifts or between different employees rather than uniformly poor interpersonal conduct.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and safety raise frequent complaints. Reported problems include strong or persistent odors in the yard and some rooms, extremely small resident rooms with old carpet, and bathrooms whose doors do not fully close. Maintenance deficiencies are noted as well: non-working electrical outlets, exposed wiring, and other items described as safety hazards. Although at least one reviewer called the facility clean, the combination of odor reports, dated carpets, and maintenance issues paints a picture of an older building that may not be consistently or adequately maintained.
Management, billing, and responsiveness are another consistent theme. Multiple reviews state that management ignored reported problems or downplayed family concerns. Financial complaints are prominent: reviewers say they were charged the first month's payment and that most of the money was retained, with only partial refunds issued after complaints. There is also a disputed placement fee. These billing and administrative issues, combined with claims that management did not proactively address care or safety concerns, contribute strongly to the negative overall impression.
Patterns across reviews suggest inconsistent care and oversight. Positive mentions (friendly staff, initial owner approachability, occasional reports of cleanliness) exist but are sporadic and often accompanied by more serious negatives from other reviewers. Taken together, the reviews point to a facility with aging infrastructure, variable staff performance, lapses in clinical care (including medication and feeding tube management), communication problems, and management practices that some families find unresponsive or problematic—especially around billing and when serious incidents occur.
For prospective families or referral sources, the reviews indicate significant caution is warranted. The most pressing red flags are reports of medical mismanagement (feeding tube errors, meds given despite NPO), safety hazards (exposed wiring, non-functioning outlets), and the family-reported circumstances around a resident death coupled with disputed communication and billing practices. If considering this facility, reviewers’ accounts suggest confirming current staffing patterns, clinical oversight and policies, maintenance and safety remediation, billing and contract terms, and how management responds to complaints and critical incidents. The mixed, but predominantly negative, pattern in these summaries suggests that many families would want to explore alternatives or demand clear, verifiable assurances and immediate corrections before placement.
