Overall sentiment across the collected reviews is highly polarized, with multiple reviewers praising staff, management, activities, and affordability, while a substantial number report serious care, cleanliness, safety, and facility maintenance problems. Many families emphasize that particular staff members—most notably the director/manager named Anthony (and sometimes Barbara)—are compassionate, responsive, and personally involved in residents’ care. Positive reviews consistently highlight affordable rates, supportive management, regular hygiene assistance, dementia care, provision of incontinence supplies, bed monitors, and included services such as transportation to medical appointments, hair and beauty services, and a robust activities program (games, music, karaoke, church services, gardening). The facility is described by some as welcoming and home-like, with residents who appear happy and engaged; reviewers also appreciate the secure entry, large backyard, pet-friendly atmosphere, and a staff that will “go above and beyond.” Several accounts note an apparent improvement under new ownership or a name change to Redwood Senior Living, and proactive managers who are available around the clock.
Contrasting sharply with these positive accounts are multiple, sometimes severe, complaints about clinical competence, hygiene, and safety. Several reviewers recount incidents indicating inadequate clinical training: staff unable to drain a urine bag, nurses reportedly unaware of patients’ blood sugar status, and lack of routine vital-sign monitoring such as blood pressure checks. There are disturbing descriptions of undignified care (diapers not changed, diapers held in a resident’s face) and inappropriate behavior by a head nurse. Cleanliness and pest control are recurring problems in many reviews—reports include urine odors, rooms smelling of urine, debris left behind after moves, mice, roaches, and even bedbugs. These conditions are paired with maintenance and infrastructure complaints: nonworking electrical outlets, beds not plugged in, lack of TV reception, old building interiors described as dark or “wretched,” potholes, fencing issues, and general need for updating. Some reviewers even assert regulatory or code deficiencies and lack of signage.
Safety and administrative concerns are prominent. Reviewers report gates left open, mixed accounts about the effectiveness of security (some mention cameras and a security guard; others describe a shady neighborhood), and at least one allegation that an owner removed a resident to a homeless shelter—an extreme claim that a family found unacceptable. There are also complaints about poor communication with families, inconsistent responsiveness from ownership in certain cases, and disputes over private-pay deposit handling. Several families describe very short stays (under 11 days) that ended with planned removals due to dissatisfaction. The combination of clinical lapses, hygiene problems, and management disputes has led some reviewers to state they would not recommend the facility and even to urge state reporting.
Dining, activities, and social programming are among the most consistently praised areas: many reviewers describe three good meals daily with dietary accommodations, home-cooked quality, and plentiful activities including arts and crafts, outings, karaoke, live music, dancing, and religious services. Beautician services and grooming are mentioned repeatedly as a valued convenience. These positive lifestyle features frequently coexist with the concerns about the physical plant and clinical care, suggesting that while social programming and the staff’s personal attention are strengths, they do not fully offset other deficiencies for some families.
In sum, the reviews portray a facility with clear strengths in personal attention, activities, affordability, and certain hands-on managers (notably Anthony), but also significant and recurring weaknesses in training, clinical care, cleanliness, maintenance, and safety. The experience appears highly variable: some residents and families are very satisfied and commend the staff and management, while others report situations serious enough to warrant rapid discharge and potential regulatory complaint. Prospective families should weigh the favorable aspects—cost, activities, involved staff—against the documented risks: inspect the condition of rooms and common areas, ask detailed questions about clinical training and emergency protocols, verify pest-control and cleaning routines, confirm how vital signs and diabetic care are monitored, and seek direct references from current families. If any review references (e.g., examples of inappropriate clinical incidents or evictions) are of particular concern, follow up with state licensing or inspection reports before placement.
