Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed, ranging from strong praise to serious complaints. Many families and residents report genuinely compassionate, attentive caregiving from specific nurses, CNAs, and therapists; these positive accounts often highlight staff who ‘‘go above and beyond,’’ effective and enjoyable rehabilitation therapy, proactive family communication, and individual clinicians (for example, Dr. Wexler and named staff such as Holly, Justin, Rhonda) who provided comfort and good outcomes. Activity staff and therapy-related interactions (music programs, dedicated activity personnel like Felicia and Mondo) are repeatedly credited with improving mood and engagement for residents. Several reviewers describe clean units, tasty meals, and an overall sense of being well cared-for — comments that emphasize peace of mind, comfort, and significant rehab progress for some patients. The facility is also reported to be undergoing remodeling in places, which some families viewed positively.
However, a substantial number of reviews describe serious problems that point to systemic inconsistency, most notably staffing and responsiveness. Understaffing, long waits for assistance, ignored call lights, and delays in delivering medications (including pain medication and insulin/diabetic management) are recurring themes. These operational shortfalls are frequently tied to adverse outcomes in the reviews: residents left in bed for extended periods, failure to provide or follow up on therapy, patients left on the floor after falls, delayed responses to respiratory distress, and at least one report of a fall from a wheelchair. Several reviews allege neglect of basic personal care (not showered, forced diaper use), lack of laundry/linen assistance, and insufficient nursing attention.
Safety and clinical quality concerns are prominent. Multiple reviewers raised infection-related problems — exposure to MRSA, pneumonia risk, abscess complications, and other infectious disease exposures — and at least one review referenced hospitalization and Adult Protective Services involvement. There are also mentions of inappropriate conduct and facility-safety lapses (for example, after-hours male visitors in an all-female room, inappropriate behavior at the nurses’ station), which heighten concerns about supervision and policies. Medication procedure failures and slow doctor responsiveness compound these clinical safety worries. Some families reported tragic outcomes (a sibling’s death was cited by one reviewer), and several reviewers explicitly recommended filing formal complaints with health authorities.
Management, communication, and consistency are additional divided themes. Positive reviews note proactive, compassionate management and clear communication that reassures families; negative reviews describe poor administrative communication, restricted checkout policies, rude or demeaning interactions from staff or case managers, and an apparent prioritization of for-profit constraints (noted private-pay issues related to a 100-day limit). The result is a highly variable experience: some families feel fully informed and supported, while others say they had to remain highly involved, provide supplemental supplies or furniture (bringing their own chairs), and continually advocate for basic care.
Dining and physical plant feedback is mixed but leans negative overall. While some reviewers enjoyed the meals, many complained about tasteless or awful food. Room quality also varies — positive mentions of comfortable, hospital-style rooms contrast with reports of very small, closet-sized rooms, drafts from windows, and the visible effects of an older building. Several reviewers explicitly described the facility as ‘‘old’’ despite ongoing remodeling in parts.
In summary, the reviews present a polarized picture: the facility can and does provide excellent, compassionate care and effective therapy for some residents, delivered by dedicated clinicians and activity staff who create meaningful, positive experiences. At the same time, there are persistent, serious complaints centered on understaffing, inconsistent nursing care, medication and diabetic-management delays, infection risks, safety incidents, and administrative shortcomings. These negative reports frequently involve severe consequences (hospitalization, regulatory involvement) and suggest that quality is highly dependent on staffing levels, shift, and individual caregivers. Families considering this facility should weigh the positive testimonials about specific staff and therapy outcomes against the recurring operational and safety concerns; several reviewers emphasized the need for active family involvement and vigilance to ensure adequate care.
