Overall sentiment is sharply mixed, with a clear bifurcation between multiple strong positive experiences (notably effective rehabilitation, compassionate individual staff members, clean conditions and successful recoveries) and numerous serious negative allegations (neglect, medication errors, infections, poor food, theft and management indifference). Reviews repeatedly describe two distinct patterns: families who experienced attentive, professional therapy and nursing care and who praised admissions, social services, and specific employees; and families who reported neglectful, unsafe, and even harmful care that resulted in hospitalization, severe wounds, or death. This divergence suggests large variability in resident experience that may depend on staffing, timing, unit, or individual caregivers.
Care quality and safety are the most polarizing themes. Positive reviews highlight therapists and nurses who “went above and beyond,” rapid rehabilitation progress, coordinated care teams, and cases of full recovery and long-term residents being well cared for. Conversely, numerous reviews describe serious failures: repeated delays or withholding of medications (including insulin), medication/dietary mistakes (unapproved pork or aspirin), prolonged unanswered call lights, residents left in soiled clothing or diapers, inadequate bathing assistance, pressure injuries (up to stage 4 wounds), sepsis and COVID infections, and at least some reviewers directly linking neglectful care to major health declines or death. Several reviewers also alleged unauthorized medication administration or “drugging” without consent. Together, these reports raise consistent concerns about medication management, wound prevention and treatment, and timely clinical responsiveness.
Staffing and staff behavior are frequent topics. Many reviewers praise individual staff members by name (receptionists, nurses, CNAs and therapists) and describe them as compassionate, diligent and effective. However, an equally large number of reviews describe systemic staffing problems: overworked aides, high aide-to-patient loads, inconsistent coverage (especially nights or weekends), loud arguing among staff, and indifferent or rude administrative behavior. These staffing stresses are commonly cited as root causes for delayed care, missed turns and baths, long call button waits, and poor hygiene. The presence of both heroic individual staff and accounts of understaffing suggests that positive staff performance may be inconsistent and dependent on which personnel are on shift.
Facilities, cleanliness and environment receive mixed assessments. Many reviewers report the facility is clean, updated and comfortable, and several long-term residents report satisfaction with a home-like environment. In contrast, other reviewers describe persistent odors (urine/feces), filthy conditions, soiled bedding and clothing, missing personal items, and a building described as needing a revamp. These opposing descriptions again point to variability in housekeeping and frontline care practices across shifts or units.
Dining and nutrition show recurring concerns. Some families appreciated flexible dining options and diet accommodations and noted good-tasting food. However, a substantial portion of reviews describe poor food quality (cold, mushy, overly salty), and several reviewers linked meals to vomiting, not eating, weight loss, or dietary mistakes (serving pork to someone with restrictions). Some reviewers noted a decline in food quality tied to cost-cutting and a change in kitchen staff. Nutrition and meal management repeatedly emerge as areas of dissatisfaction for many families.
Communication, management and administration are other significant themes. Positive reviewers report informative admissions, responsive social services, and good coordination among nurses, business office and family. Negative reviewers repeatedly accuse management of indifference, rudeness, slow responses to incidents, failing to inform families of serious events, and even hiding or not returning personal items. Problems cited include mismanaged discharge dates, denial of medication overrides by management, and inconsistent or difficult visitation policies (long waits, window-only visits, or restrictive rules). Phone responsiveness and follow-up are also frequently criticized.
Notable safety incidents and allegations of abuse, theft, and negligence recur enough to be a dominant concern: reports of dropped patients, theft or missing belongings, phones or items hidden, and allegations of staff drugging or giving medications without consent. Multiple accounts tie these failures to poor outcomes including hospital readmissions, infections, and fatalities. Such reports, if accurate, indicate critical lapses in supervision, policies, and regulatory compliance for some residents.
Patterns and takeaway: reviews indicate a facility capable of high-quality care in many cases—especially in rehabilitation and therapy—delivering measurable recoveries and positive long-term residency experiences. At the same time, there is a persistent and substantive pattern of safety, staffing, medication management and hygiene complaints that have caused severe harm in multiple reports. The contrast between glowing and scathing reviews suggests variable performance that may be influenced by staffing levels, management practices, shift coverage, or unit-specific issues.
For families evaluating this facility: verify current staffing ratios, ask about medication management protocols (including insulin and dietary restrictions), request documentation of wound care and pressure sore prevention practices, confirm visitation policies, and seek contact references for recent residents who had similar needs (skilled rehab vs. long-term care). If concerns about medication errors, pressure injuries, infection control or theft are particularly important, consider direct conversations with nursing leadership and state inspection reports to corroborate current conditions. The volume and severity of negative allegations are substantial enough to warrant careful due diligence, even though many reviewers had positive experiences and praised individual staff and therapy outcomes.
