Overall sentiment in the collected reviews is mixed and somewhat polarized. A substantial number of reviews express strong satisfaction: reviewers repeatedly highlight excellent communication, knowledgeable admissions/staff contacts (notably named as Alex/Alexandra), and a care team that "goes above and beyond." Several comments emphasize trust in the staff, genuine compassion, professionalism, and resident-focused care. The facility is described by multiple reviewers as impeccably maintained, offering hospitality and individualized attention, and many reviewers state they would recommend the facility and that residents are content and wish to remain.
Staff-level praise is a major recurring theme. Specific caregivers are singled out for exceptional care and personal attention (Josie, Cora, Lin, Elizabeth), and multiple reviewers credit frontline staff with creating a comfortable and reassuring environment. Positive reviewers describe direct, informative communication from staff, responsiveness to questions, and an overall sense that the team prioritizes resident well-being and dignity. The tone across the positive comments is strongly approving, with some reviewers going so far as to call the facility "the best" and expressing confidence that their loved ones are in the right place.
In contrast, several serious negative themes appear in other reviews and cannot be ignored. One review alleges confrontational and intimidating interactions from staff or management, describing an interrogation-like tone, inappropriate questions, unanswered queries, and a general lack of transparency. That same or other critical reviews raise severe care and hygiene concerns: reports of a pad saturated with urine, a resident allegedly being fed only once per day, caregivers not intervening when needed, and statements suggesting dishonesty by staff. There is also at least one dramatic report indicating significant resident decline (coughing, nearing death) tied to the facility's care, and a hyperbolic comment indicating the reviewer "wouldn't put my dog in there." These allegations are serious and, if accurate, indicate lapses in basic care, incontinence management, feeding/nutrition, and communication.
A notable contextual pattern is the mention of new ownership by multiple reviewers. For some, new ownership is framed positively, with endorsements of improved communication and staff performance; for others, it is associated with recent problems or changes that coincide with negative experiences. This suggests variability in how transitions have been managed and that resident/family experiences may depend on timing, specific staff on duty, or how newly implemented policies are applied.
Another pattern is the small number of reviews despite the company's claim of operating for several years. Several reviewers reference the longevity of the business but note few online reviews, which can complicate efforts to establish a reliable track record through public feedback alone. Additionally, at least one reviewer directly disputes a negative review as misleading, which indicates contested narratives and the possibility of outlier accounts or misunderstandings that require follow-up.
In synthesis, the body of feedback paints a divided picture: many first-hand accounts praise compassionate, competent, and attentive care in a clean, well-maintained environment, while a smaller but alarmingly severe set of reviews asserts problems with communication style, transparency, hygiene, and direct neglect. For a prospective resident or family member, the mixed nature of reviews suggests the importance of an in-person visit, asking pointed questions about incontinence care, feeding protocols, staffing ratios, and how the facility handles complaints and transitions in ownership. Verifying recent references, meeting the specific caregivers named by other families, and requesting documentation of care plans and incident resolutions would be prudent steps to reconcile these conflicting reports and make an informed decision.
