Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed, with strong polarization between reviewers who experienced attentive, compassionate care and those who reported serious lapses in clinical care, sanitation, and responsiveness. Multiple reviews praise specific staff members (notably a social worker named Erin, a concierge named Matthew, and the Admissions Director) and describe clean, well-maintained areas, good activities, and a supportive admissions experience. These positive reviews emphasize caring nurses, polite CNAs, a secure facility with ample parking, and instances of successful rehabilitation and therapy. Several family reviewers explicitly recommend the facility and report satisfaction from admission to discharge.
Conversely, a recurring and significant portion of reviews describe severe problems that raise safety and quality-of-care concerns. Reported clinical issues include failure to respond appropriately after falls, missing or mishandled medications, and cases that allegedly led to sepsis, hospitalization, or discharge with pneumonia, dehydration, urinary tract infection, and fever. Multiple reviewers reported that call bells and room phones were not working or went unanswered, resulting in delayed care. There are repeated complaints of unsanitary conditions in resident rooms (urine odor, soiled/dirty diapers, and a "porta-potty"-like description), lack of bathing or hygiene assistance (commode left at bedside to avoid helping), and televisions or other room amenities not functioning. These reports describe both neglect and potentially unethical behavior, including an allegation involving theft of an SSI check and broader concerns about medication handling.
Staffing and consistency emerge as central themes explaining the mixed experiences. Several reviewers highlight compassionate, hardworking staff who went above and beyond—especially during the pandemic—while others describe staff as unprofessional, overworked, or paycheck-driven. Short staffing and uneven coverage across shifts are cited as likely contributors to the variability in care: when staff levels are adequate and particular employees are assigned, families report high-quality care; when shortages or specific personnel issues occur, serious deficiencies appear. This inconsistency also touches rehabilitation services—some families praised therapy, while others said physical therapy was ineffective or therapy placements felt inappropriate.
Dining and activities also receive polarized feedback. Some reviewers enjoyed good meals, an excellent dining area, and a variety of activities, while others reported food not being delivered, misdelivery, or consistently poor meals. Facility appearance is similarly split: many reviewers call the facility clean and well-decorated, yet others report parts that look outdated or smell foul. Management and administration responses vary in reviewers' accounts: a number of people commend a generous and kind admissions director and note that new ownership (since November) has shown efforts to correct past issues. At the same time, other families experienced unresponsive administration and felt concerns were not addressed, including complaints about discharge decisions and admission delays.
Notable patterns and takeaways: the facility appears capable of providing good care in many cases, and specific staff members receive high praise; however, there is a recurring pattern of serious incidents and systemic problems tied to staffing levels, responsiveness, and sanitation. The presence of both very positive and deeply negative reviews—along with explicit claims of fraudulent reviews—means prospective families should treat the review set cautiously and seek direct verification. Important practical steps for an interested family, based on the recurring themes, would be to: (1) visit the facility in person, at varied times and shifts, to observe staffing and cleanliness; (2) ask management about recent staffing changes, ownership updates, and outcomes related to incidents cited by reviewers; (3) inquire specifically about call bell systems, medication management protocols, infection-control policies, and post-fall monitoring; and (4) request references from recent families or encourage trial/short-term stays to evaluate actual care consistency. Overall, while the facility shows potential and pockets of good practice, the serious negative reports about medical oversight and sanitation are significant and merit careful investigation before placing a loved one there.
