Overall sentiment across the reviews is overwhelmingly negative, though there are important positive pockets of care. A recurring pattern is marked variability: some reviewers report excellent, attentive care—especially from specific therapists, CNAs, nurses, social workers, and a few managers—while many more accounts describe entrenched systemic problems that materially affect resident safety, hygiene, nutrition, and clinical outcomes.
Care quality and clinical outcomes are the most frequently criticized areas. Multiple reviewers report missed basic care tasks (bathing not performed, bed sheets not changed, residents left in soiled diapers for hours), long delays answering call lights (15–30+ minutes or more), and poor responsiveness to acute needs. These failures are linked in several reviews to adverse clinical events including urinary tract infections, severe nutritional decline/weight loss, bedsores, transfers to hospital/ICU, and in some cases death. There are also allegations of falls, dropped residents, and delayed response to choking. While some families credit therapy services with improving strength and mobility for certain patients, other reviewers state that physical therapy was inadequate or not provided as needed.
Staffing, morale, and interpersonal behavior recur as major themes. Many reviews describe chronic short-staffing, CNAs who are overworked and underpaid, staff walking off or being threatened with termination, and a toxic workplace atmosphere. This environment is presented as a driver of poor care: overburdened staff unable to keep up with hygiene and toileting needs, inconsistent follow-through from nurses, and poor communication between departments. Numerous reports of rude, arrogant, or unprofessional behavior by specific staff and supervisors—up to alleged threats and attempted physical intimidation—contribute to family distress. At the same time, reviewers consistently name individual staff who provided excellent care and compassion (examples: Michelle, Maria, Daisy, Ruby, Charity is named negatively by some), indicating that competent and caring employees exist but are unevenly distributed.
Facilities, cleanliness, and supplies are another area of concern. Multiple reviewers mention bad odors (urine), dirty linens, dusty corners, floors not mopped, and bloodied dressings or dirty trays left in rooms. There are also repeated complaints about inadequate supplies from the facility (lack of bed pads, pee bottles, or basic hygiene supplies), forcing families to provide essentials. Some reviews mention lack of air conditioning and warm rooms. Rooming arrangements are sometimes overcrowded (three patients per room cited), and care quality appears to vary significantly by hallway or unit (some wings like the 300 hallway are singled out as worse, while specific rooms/staff are praised). Cleanliness and sanitation lapses are tied by reviewers to increased infection risk and poor dignity/care for residents.
Dining and nutrition receive extensive negative feedback. Common complaints include small portion sizes, repetitive meals served to everyone regardless of preference or dietary needs, and diabetic or specialized meals that are inappropriate (high in carbs, sugars). Several reviewers report residents being served items on their 'do-not-eat' lists or being left without adequate food or water. At least one reviewer contrasts this with positive comments (some enjoyed food, vanilla ice cream availability), again highlighting inconsistency. Dietary staff turnover is mentioned as exacerbating these problems.
Management, accountability, and external oversight emerge as contentious topics. Many families perceive administration as disconnected from floor-level care; complaints about lost belongings, alleged theft, and lack of investigation are common. Several reviewers assert that state ombudsman visits or inspections produced little lasting change and express distrust of official oversight and the facility’s motives (terms like 'cash-cow mentality' and 'corruption' appear). Conversely, other reviewers note improvements under new management or specific administrators (Ciera, Tiffany Simmons, Administrator Kirk) and credit them with better leadership and positive changes for individual families. This suggests potential recent changes that may not yet be consistent or facility-wide.
Safety, infection control, and reporting are also recurrently criticized. Reviewers report COVID exposures without timely notification, staff asked to work while ill, and inconsistent infection control leading to outbreaks. There are also multiple allegations of neglect or abuse, ranging from insufficient toileting and hygiene to more serious claims of assault or endangering patients. These reports are often tied to poor staffing, inadequate training, or a lack of supervisory oversight.
Patterns and notable contrasts: reviews show a polarized experience—some families report that therapy, certain nurses/CNAs, and specific administrators provided excellent, even life-improving care, while many more accounts document systemic neglect, unclean conditions, poor food services, and dangerous care lapses. Several names and roles recur positively (therapists, Daisy, Ruby, Angela at front desk), and several staff are called out negatively (nurse Charity Anith in one report). There are also repeated mentions that family advocacy materially affects outcomes: families who are present, vocal, and persistent often receive better responsiveness.
In summary, the dominant themes are inconsistency and risk: pockets of very good care exist but are overshadowed by frequent, serious complaints about staffing shortages, neglect of basic hygiene and toileting, poor food and nutrition management, sanitation problems, and problematic management/communication. These issues have been linked by reviewers to clinical deterioration, hospitalizations, infections, bedsores, and deaths in multiple accounts. While some reviewers describe recent managerial improvements and strong therapy/rehab services, the preponderance of reports raise significant concerns about resident safety, dignity, and reliable day-to-day care. Families considering this facility should be aware of the wide variability in experiences, monitor care closely, document issues, and ask direct questions about staffing, infection control, supplies, nutritional accommodations, and care plans; those with limited ability to advocate on-site reported the worst outcomes in these reviews.
