Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized, with a strong pattern of serious care concerns reported by many reviewers alongside a number of positive experiences praising individual staff and specific services. The most common and most severe themes relate to inconsistent staffing and care quality. Numerous reviews describe understaffing as a systemic problem that results in delayed responses, missed basic care tasks (bathing, toileting, feeding), and residents being left in soiled clothing or in wheelchairs for long periods. Multiple reviewers reported missed medications or delayed pain management, with some accounts leading to emergency room visits or withdrawal-like symptoms. There are repeated complaints of missed medical assessments and appointments, untreated UTIs, wounds left open or bandages neglected, and an elevated risk of pressure injuries and other avoidable complications.
Staff performance is described as highly variable. Many reviewers call out particular CNAs, nurses, therapists, or social services personnel as compassionate, dedicated, and professional; these staff members are often credited with providing good rehabilitation outcomes, engaging activities, and helpful discharge coordination. At the same time, numerous accounts describe other staff as rude, dismissive, combative, or neglectful. Reports include alleged falsification or inaccuracy of medical records, false documentation of doctor visits or tests, privacy breaches (wrong records handed out), and poor communication with families. These allegations raise concerns not only about bedside care but also about recordkeeping, transparency, and accountability.
Rehabilitation services and activities emerge as a consistent positive in many reviews: several people praised the rehabilitation specialists, persistent physical therapy, engaging activities such as bingo and music time, and pleasant outdoor seating. Dining experiences are mixed but often noted favorably by some reviewers—comments include tasty food and availability of dietary accommodations (vegan, non-dairy, organic, soy). Facility environment reports are split: some reviewers describe spacious, clean rooms and bathrooms and a friendly atmosphere, while others highlight urine odor, dirty halls, poor cleanliness, and crowded three-bed rooms with curtains that block light and view. Noise at night and disturbances from very ill long-term residents were also mentioned as a negative environmental factor.
Communication and management concerns are prominent. Families frequently report difficulty reaching clinicians or obtaining meaningful updates. Several reviewers said doctors were not communicating, and that the facility’s director or management were often absent or unresponsive. A few reviewers noted improvements with new management (one person named Karl) and praised specific social services staff for coordinating transitions home, suggesting that leadership and management changes can influence care quality. Several reviews describe extreme failures — life-threatening neglect, police involvement, calls for regulatory shutdown, and one or more reports that the facility was closed in 2023 — indicating that problems led to formal complaints or regulatory action in at least some cases.
Safety and regulatory issues appear repeatedly in the narratives: missed medications, untreated infections, wounds left bleeding, and allegations of abandonment or cruelty are reported. There are also accounts of privacy breaches and suspected false reporting of tests or diagnoses, which increase the gravity of concerns beyond typical staffing problems. Visitation and communication barriers—restricted visit times, required appointments, and broken phones—add to family frustration and limit oversight.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility with a mixed record: strong pockets of high-quality, compassionate care and effective rehabilitation services coexist with frequent and serious complaints of neglect, understaffing, poor hygiene, medication and documentation failures, and poor communication. The pattern suggests inconsistent performance across shifts and personnel rather than uniformly good or bad care. Families considering this facility should weigh the positive reports of rehab and individualized staff dedication against the repeated, specific accounts of neglect, safety risks, and regulatory concerns. The reports of closure/shutdown and the numerous severe allegations indicate a need for careful verification of current operational and regulatory status before making decisions based on these reviews.
