Overall sentiment is strongly mixed and polarized: many reviewers describe exceptional, compassionate, and deeply respectful care, while a substantial number report serious problems including neglect, rudeness, and poor medical attention. The facility receives high praise from families who experienced attentive nurses, CNAs, therapists, and social workers who treated residents with dignity and involved families in care decisions. Positive accounts emphasize a warm, family-like atmosphere, proactive staff who go "above and beyond," a helpful front desk presence (several reviewers named LaShawn), available therapies and hospice services, a secure wandering wing, pleasant outdoor spaces, and a broad range of activities that include music, Bible studies, and patio time.
However, an equally loud thread of reviews highlights inconsistent quality driven by staff turnover and uneven management. Several reviewers recounted incidents where new or temporary staff were unfamiliar with veterans' needs or indifferent to residents. Specific, serious allegations include ignored call buttons, nurses laughing at a nearly naked patient, lack of attention to wounds and new sores, and reports of residents being left unattended. These accounts point to lapses in fundamental caregiving tasks and have led some reviewers to describe the facility as unsafe or neglectful. One reviewer cited a low Medicare rating (one star) for resident care, and others urge caution when placing a loved one there.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance are described inconsistently: some reviewers say rooms are spacious, very clean, and well-maintained with no odor, while others report filthy bathrooms and shower rooms, trash left in patient rooms, and only monthly deep cleaning. This split suggests variability by unit or staff shift rather than a single consistent standard. Dining impressions are similarly mixed: multiple menu options and three meals daily are mentioned, but several family members found the food unappetizing or repetitive (same dinner each day) and note limited meal customization. Some residents eat in their rooms by preference, and dietary staff were noted as greeting residents, which is a positive touch.
Staff behavior and professionalism are another major theme. Many reviewers praise nurses, CNAs, and therapists as compassionate, respectful, and professional, providing exemplary care and treating residents as people, not numbers. Conversely, other reviewers describe rude or hostile staff interactions, staff arguing in front of residents, and certain employees who appear unhelpful or cold (including a case manager noted as rude). These divergent accounts point to significant variability across shifts, wings, or individual employees.
Administrative and logistical concerns appear repeatedly: poor communication, unanswered calls, ignored complaints, and a difficult billing process were flagged. Several reviewers described billing miscommunication and delays, and one called the billing process "horrible." Parking and transportation issues were also raised—limited official parking, facility vehicles occupying reserved spaces, pickup delays, and frustrations with accessibility and wait times for transportation. Cost is another factor: multiple reviewers described the facility as expensive, especially for self-pay residents.
Activities, therapies, and certain amenities are strengths for many residents. Positive mentions include physical therapy, social work involvement, music programs, spiritual activities, and an attractive patio area with birds and butterflies that enhance resident quality of life. The presence of a secure wing for wandering is a practical safety asset. Several families specifically thanked individual staff members and praised the facility for delivering dignified, competent care.
Notable patterns and final assessment: the reviews reveal a facility capable of delivering excellent, compassionate care in many cases, but also vulnerable to episodes of neglect, poor hygiene, and administrative breakdowns. The variability appears tied to staffing consistency, management responsiveness, and possibly differences between units. Prospective families should weigh both the praised aspects (compassionate staff, therapies, activities, facilities) and the serious concerns (reported neglect, inconsistent cleanliness, billing and communication problems). If considering placement, it would be prudent to visit multiple times, ask specific questions about staffing stability, turnover, cleaning schedules, wound-care protocols, complaint resolution processes, and billing practices, and to seek references from current family members of residents on the same unit. This mixed set of reviews suggests that experiences can range from exemplary to deeply unsatisfactory depending on timing, staff assignment, and management responsiveness.
