Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized: a meaningful number of reviewers praise the staff, rehab outcomes, and some aspects of the facility, while an equally large and significant set of reviews describe severe problems with care, sanitation, management, and safety. Patterns show that some residents and families have very positive, person-centered experiences with attentive caregivers and effective rehabilitation, yet many other reviewers report systemic and potentially dangerous failures. The volume and severity of negative issues — particularly around sanitation, pests, alleged asbestos, food safety, theft, and neglect — are recurring themes that cannot be ignored.
Care quality and staffing: Reviews portray inconsistent care quality across shifts, units, and time periods. Positive accounts emphasize caring CNAs, successful rehab and discharge coordination, smiling staff, and strong one-on-one interactions. Negative reports focus on chronic understaffing, long waits after call lights are pushed, rough or poorly trained CNAs, and alleged neglect (including reports of residents being left sitting after bowel movements, malnutrition concerns, and failure to consult powers of attorney). Multiple reviewers said staff were unavailable by phone or did not respond to urgent needs. This variability suggests staffing levels, training, and supervision are uneven and may contribute to the reported safety incidents (falls, missing residents, hospitalizations).
Staff and management behavior: The reviews indicate a split perception of leadership. Some families describe management as responsive, visiting daily, listening to families, and working to develop activities and improvements. Others describe management as disorganized, hands-off, apathetic, or retaliatory toward critics and complainants. Allegations include dishonesty about amenities, refusal of requested doctor visits or outings, and punitive responses to family concerns. Billing mismanagement and extra/incorrect charges were reported by several reviewers, reinforcing themes of administrative disarray. These conflicting reports suggest that leadership presence and effectiveness may vary by shift, department, or over time.
Facilities, sanitation, and safety: A substantial subset of reviews report serious sanitation and facility-safety problems: persistent bad smells, filthy environments, insect droppings, mice infestation with dead mice found in the kitchen, and allegations that asbestos was present and ignored. Several reviewers specifically stated the kitchen and dining areas had cross-contamination risks and lacked proper food-safety certification. Maintenance issues — such as broken automatic doors and a generally aging, falling-apart building — were also cited. These claims, combined with reports of drug use on premises and rough behavior among certain residents, raise significant health and safety concerns that reviewers characterized as making the facility unsafe for residents.
Dining and nutrition: Dining complaints are widespread and specific: very small portions, frozen or cold meals, menu items frequently running out, minimal snacks and fruit, and reports of unsafe food-handling (e.g., ham left at room temperature, cross-contamination). Some reviewers described an inability to eat in the dining room due to disgust. At the same time, some reviews praise the food and describe it as excellent. The contrast again points to inconsistency — potentially related to kitchen staffing, supply issues, or different dining units.
Personal property, laundry, and theft: Multiple reviewers reported missing or stolen items, lost hearing aids, mishandled ashes and funeral costs, and poor laundry service with missing clothing. Several accounts assert that management was unhelpful or dismissive when these issues were raised. Allegations of theft and dishonesty are among the most serious recurring complaints and contribute to a broader sense of distrust among families.
Activities and social life: Activity programming appears uneven. Some reviewers report limited activities, few snacks, and disruptive residents interfering with participation. Other reviews mention active development of programming — poker night, nails Fridays, an upcoming game room, ambassador programs — and praise staff who engage residents. Where activities are present and run by engaged staff, reviewers report meaningful improvement in resident mood and quality of life. Where staff are stretched thin or management disengaged, activity offerings appear minimal.
Communication and responsiveness: Many reviews highlight poor communication: long hold times on phones, calls not being answered, and unhelpful responses from staff or administration. Conversely, some families describe approachable staff and administrators who coordinate care well. Several reviewers said they were not consulted about significant care decisions, suggesting lapses in consent and family involvement.
Notable severe allegations: There are repeated, serious allegations that warrant external verification: reports of asbestos in the building, active mice infestations (including dead rodents in the kitchen), evidence of drug use on site, theft and mishandling of ashes, and claims of neglect leading to malnutrition. These are reported by multiple reviewers and, if accurate, pose immediate regulatory and safety concerns.
Overall assessment and patterns: The reviews collectively paint a picture of a facility with highly variable performance. Strengths tend to be at the caregiver level — dedicated CNAs, some helpful administrative staff, and successful rehabilitation stories. Weaknesses are systemic: management inconsistencies, sanitation and pest control problems, food-service failures, understaffing, safety incidents, billing errors, and serious allegations of theft and neglect. The coexistence of strong positive and severe negative reports suggests either rapid changes over time (improvement or decline), significant differences between units or shifts, or uneven leadership and training.
Given the mixture of glowing and alarming reports, prospective residents and families should exercise caution: visit multiple times at different times of day, speak directly to nurses and unit staff, ask for recent inspection reports and corrective action documentation, verify pest-control and environmental safety (including asbestos remediation), review staffing ratios, ask about kitchen certifications and food-safety practices, and confirm policies for handling valuables and billing. For current concerns, families should document incidents, escalate to facility leadership, and consider contacting the state long-term care ombudsman or licensing authority to review inspection histories and reported complaints. The reviews show there are compassionate caregivers who provide excellent care, but also numerous, repeated systemic issues that require verification and possible external intervention.
