Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed, with strong, repeated praise for the staff's compassion and individualized care on one hand, and serious sanitation, safety, and management concerns on the other. Many reviewers emphasize a family-like atmosphere, frequent and thoughtful communication with families (photos, FaceTime, phone updates), and staff who go above and beyond—particularly in hospice and end-of-life situations. Specific positive mentions include a named chef (Andre) and reports of very good meals, engaging entertainment and activities, and an approachable, proactive director or administration that families can reach easily.
However, an important and recurring negative theme is that care quality appears inconsistent across residents, shifts, or units. Several reviews describe alarming neglect: residents not bathed, poor personal hygiene, reports of mold growth on skin, and generally filthy conditions including roaches and dirty surfaces. These accounts raise significant concerns about basic caregiving routines and infection control. Parallel to these sanitation complaints are multiple reports of equipment breakdowns and safety incidents such as falls, and at least one structural concern about an older, 1960s-era annex. A critical operational detail noted in the reviews is that there is no RN on site, which compounds worries about clinical oversight and response to falls or acute needs.
Dining and accommodations are another area of divided opinion. Some families rave about outstanding meals and a chef who prepares wonderful food, while other reviews complain of TV dinners, outdated meals, tolerable breakfasts/lunches but poor dinners, and a lack of snacks. Room size is flagged as small by multiple reviewers and the facility itself is described as dated. The contrast in dining and living-condition reports suggests variability in resident experience—some receive personalized, high-quality meals and comfortable service while others encounter substandard food and living conditions.
Activities and social engagement are likewise inconsistent in the reviews. Several reviewers praise numerous activities, continuous stimulation, and lots of fun entertainment, creating a lively, welcoming environment. Conversely, other reviews state limited activities and no outings, indicating that programming may depend on staffing, scheduling, or which part of the facility a resident is in. Staffing behavior is similarly bifurcated: many accounts highlight caring, responsive staff who treat residents like family, but a subset describe staff socializing on duty and poor managerial response.
Management and referral experiences reflect mixed impressions as well. Positive comments note a proactive, easy-to-reach director and family-run ethos where staff go the extra mile. Negative feedback includes descriptions of poor overall management, a referral/intake service that provided no assistance or suggestions and appears money-driven, and distrust in the referral process. Taken together, these suggest variability in administrative responsiveness and possible gaps in admission or intake support.
Taken as a whole, the reviews point to a facility capable of delivering warm, attentive, and highly valued care—especially around hospice/end-of-life services—when staffing, oversight, and resources align. At the same time, the presence of multiple, severe complaints about hygiene, cleanliness, safety (falls and equipment failures), and the lack of on-site RN coverage are red flags that merit careful attention. Prospective families should weigh the strong testimonials of compassionate, personalized care against the serious sanitation and safety reports. If considering this facility, an in-person visit is advisable to inspect cleanliness, ask about RN coverage and staffing patterns, review recent inspection records, clarify meal programs and snack availability, and verify activity schedules and fall-prevention policies to determine consistency and suitability for the prospective resident.
