Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: several reviewers describe outstanding, empathetic, and attentive care — especially from specific nurses, CNAs, and the therapy team — while other reviews raise serious concerns about neglect, staffing instability, and problematic staff behavior. The most consistent positives are the quality of hands-on care provided by many staff members, successful rehab outcomes, good meals and dietary accommodations, and a clean, well-kept environment despite an older physical plant. Multiple reviewers singled out individual employees (Christelle, Allen, Stacy and the therapy crew) for praise and described staff as supportive of families and helpful with appointments and coordination of care.
Care quality and frontline staff: Many reviews emphasize compassionate, personal care and successful rehabilitation. Residents and families reported that nursing staff and therapists helped with recovery progress and provided mental and social support. The personal touch from certain employees and the therapy team's effectiveness were recurring strengths. However, these positive reports coexist with serious negative accounts: some reviewers reported neglect, bullying by CNAs, rude behavior, language barriers, and instances of racial discrimination. Several reviewers observed that only a subset of staff were consistently good, implying uneven quality of care depending on which staff are on duty.
Staffing, turnover, and management: A major theme is concern about staffing stability. Multiple comments mention staffing shortages, high turnover, and departures of named staff (Russel and Steven L.), which reviewers link to both gaps in care and diminished accountability. There is also dissatisfaction with management and corporate oversight — reviewers referenced a profit motive and noted administrative problems such as a fax number being given instead of a phone line. Some reviewers said they could not obtain satisfactory resolutions to problems raised, which amplifies concern about leadership responsiveness and quality control.
Facilities and amenities: Reviewers consistently describe the facility as very clean and well-kept but aging. Food receives positive remarks — described as good and plentiful with the ability to accommodate dietary needs. The environment supports rehab and short-term stays for recovery, with several noting they would use the facility again for rehab. Social and mental support services were mentioned positively, indicating activities or engagement beyond basic nursing care, though details on programming were limited in the summaries provided.
Patterns and trade-offs: The reviews paint a facility with meaningful strengths at the bedside level but with systemic weaknesses that can undermine that care. When well-staffed with committed caregivers and therapists, the center provides excellent, empathetic care and strong rehab outcomes. When staffing is thin or when particular problematic employees are involved, families experience neglect, poor communication, or discriminatory behavior. Administrative and corporate issues — turnover in leadership, difficulty getting resolutions, and perceived prioritization of profit — are frequent concerns that may contribute to the uneven resident experience.
Bottom line: If you prioritize individualized, hands-on rehab and can confirm current staffing stability and leadership responsiveness, reviewers report strong, compassionate care and good outcomes. However, prospective residents and families should probe current staffing levels, turnover rates, complaint-resolution processes, and whether management has addressed past incidents of neglect, bullying, and discrimination. Asking for recent staffing schedules, turnover statistics, and speaking with multiple families or current residents may help determine whether the facility’s cited strengths are consistent and reliable at the time of placement.
