Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed, with strong, repeated praise for direct care clinicians — especially in physical and occupational therapy — and serious, recurring concerns about administration, communication, hygiene, and safety. Multiple reviewers described very positive hands-on care experiences: nurses and aides were often called caring, attentive, and comforting; specific staff members (for example, Veronica Rojas, RN Jose, LVNs Steffani and Christina, physical therapist Marlon, and caretaker Maria) were singled out for exemplary care. Several reviewers reported measurable clinical improvement during short stays (e.g., a 10-day stay that restored leg function), and the skilled therapy program is repeatedly highlighted as a major strength. Families appreciated frequent check-ins, phone updates, and the willingness of some staff to go above and beyond for patient comfort.
However, those positives sit alongside frequent and sometimes severe negative reports centered on management, communication, and safety. A consistent theme is unresponsive administration and social services: callers left unreturned messages, families experienced late or no callbacks, and discharge planning was characterized as poorly handled — with delays, unprepared paperwork, and transportation not ordered. One particularly alarming account described a wheelchair-bound dementia patient placed in an Uber for transport, raising safety concerns during transit. Reviewers also reported misleading statements and false accusations from staff or management, further eroding trust.
Hygiene and basic nursing care also appear inconsistent across reports. Several reviewers described serious sanitation issues: unclean rooms on move-in, crusted food on surfaces, dried blood on surgical bandages, feces and blood on bedding, delayed diaper changes, and wipes kept locked away. These reports contrast with other reviewers who described the facility as very clean, indicating significant variability in standards or in the units/floors experienced by different patients. Crowding and privacy concerns were raised (three-person rooms), and amenities were limited for some — the activity room was closed due to COVID at times, there is no on-site salon, and meals were often described as merely 'ok' rather than high quality.
Staffing and clinician responsiveness are mixed. Many reviewers praised friendly nurses, caring aides, and effective therapy staff, yet others reported forgetful, slow, or payment-focused behavior and even an unresponsive doctor. There are reports of critical failures in communication with families — including lack of notification about clinical deterioration — and extreme negative outcomes were mentioned (one report alleged progression to sepsis and kidney failure with poor family notification, culminating in death). These serious allegations underscore the potential consequences of the communication and care coordination problems described.
Management and facility trajectory appear to be in flux: one reviewer noted new management, renovation, and building improvements with an 'amazing staff' under the newer regime, suggesting some positive changes are underway. Still, the pattern across reviews is polarized — some families experience exemplary, recovery-oriented care, especially from therapy teams and specific nursing staff, while others report administrative dysfunction, safety lapses, and unacceptable hygiene.
Implications for families and decision-makers: the facility offers strong therapy resources and many compassionate frontline caregivers, which can make it a good fit for rehabilitation-focused short stays. However, prospective residents and families should proactively verify discharge-planning procedures, transportation policies (especially for high-risk or dementia patients), staffing ratios, and hygiene protocols. Ask for clarity on how communications and callbacks are handled, who covers physician availability, how incontinence supplies are managed, and whether recent renovations or management changes have resolved past administrative problems. Given the polarized experiences, an in-person visit and direct conversations with the therapy team, nursing leadership, and social services before admission are advisable to help reduce the risk of the serious failures reported by some reviewers.
