The reviews present an overwhelmingly negative view of Peterson's Sheltered Care Center, with multiple reviewers reporting serious concerns about staff behavior, resident care, and facility policies. The most consistent themes are staff rudeness and unresponsiveness, claims of mistreatment or uncaring/‘‘cruel’’ behavior toward residents, and allegations that family members’ possessions—specifically cell phones—were confiscated. Several reviewers explicitly say they would not recommend the facility, and one summary characterizes the place as "horrible." These comments suggest both interpersonal and procedural problems that have significantly eroded trust between families and the center.
Care quality and resident safety are central issues in the feedback. Multiple reviewers state that the facility is "ill-equipped to care for the disabled," and mention cruel or uncaring treatment of patients. While the reviews do not provide medical details, the language used ("horrible place," "uncaring," "cruel") indicates that families perceived care standards as poor and potentially harmful. Because accusations about inadequate care and mistreatment are serious, they stand out as primary red flags in the overall sentiment.
Staff behavior and customer service are recurring problems. Reviewers describe staff as rude or impolite, including phone staff who handle inquiries. Comments about staff being "hot and cold" point to inconsistent behavior and variable service quality depending on the person or time. Multiple specific mentions of rudeness toward both patients and family members reinforce a pattern of poor interpersonal conduct and weak customer-service orientation.
Facility policies and management practices are another major area of concern. The confiscation of family belongings, particularly cell phones, and the forbidding of communication or visits are cited directly in the reviews. Those actions, as reported, suggest restrictive visitation or property policies that families found unacceptable; reviewers portray these practices as isolating residents and interfering with family contact. Additionally, reviewers mention a "problematic owner" and poor overall management, indicating that issues may extend beyond front-line staff to administrative leadership and policy decisions.
Notably absent from the reviews are positive comments about dining, activities, social programming, or facility amenities—no summaries mention good food, engaging activities, clean facilities, or helpful accommodations. The one mention of the facility being "strange" may reflect discomfort with the environment or culture but is not specific. Because these areas received no positive feedback in the provided summaries, there is no evidence from these reviewers that the facility excels in programming, meals, or comforts.
Patterns and implications: several reviewers converge on the same high-risk themes—rudeness, restrictive or punitive policies (confiscation of belongings, limiting visits/communication), insufficient capacity to care for the disabled, and managerial problems. Taken together, these patterns suggest systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. While the summaries are brief and do not supply dates, names, or extensive detail, the consistency of complaints across different reviewers strengthens their credibility as indicators of ongoing problems.
For prospective families or advocates evaluating this facility, the reviews indicate several concrete points to investigate further: ask about written visitation and personal-property policies, request information on staff training and staff-to-resident ratios (especially for residents with disabilities), inquire about complaint and grievance procedures and whether there have been any formal investigations or citations, and speak with current families or ombudsman representatives to corroborate these concerns. Given the severity and consistency of the reported issues, the reviews warrant caution and thorough, documented follow-up before making placement decisions.
