Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized: many reviews praise individual caregivers, therapy teams, and the positive aspects of the facility, while numerous other reviews describe serious quality, safety, hygiene, and management failures. The most consistent positive theme is the rehabilitation/therapy program and several named staff members who are singled out as compassionate and effective. Conversely, the most consistent negative themes are systemic staffing shortages, delayed or neglected basic care, safety and hygiene failures, and administrative problems including alleged theft and poor communication.
Care quality and clinical services: Rehabilitation and therapy services receive repeated high marks. Multiple reviewers describe the rehab/physical therapy staff as skilled, effective, and instrumental in patient progress—some calling the therapy team “above all else” and the primary reason for a positive experience. Nursing and personal care are portrayed inconsistently: some nurses are described as compassionate and capable (with several staff named), but many reviews report delayed nursing responses, missed hygiene tasks (no baths or showers for days or weeks, dirty diapers left unchanged, food left on residents' faces, dentures not cleaned), untreated wounds and infections, bed sores, and failures to address pain or bowel needs. Specific medical care complaints include Foley catheter assistance issues (some staff praised for help, others criticized), lack of diagnosis knowledge, and delays in starting physical therapy for some patients.
Staffing, communication, and responsiveness: A frequent pattern is understaffing leading to long waits for assistance, unanswered call lights, medication delays, and family frustration. Poor communication from staff and administration is a common complaint: families report slow or nonexistent responses, language barriers, misinformation (including allegations that administrators lied about residents’ mobility), and inconsistent or nonexistent staff schedules. Positive counterpoints mention helpful, friendly, and knowledgeable staff who explain care plans clearly; however, these positive reports coexist with many warnings about inadequate staffing and unempathetic employees.
Safety, hygiene, and infection control concerns: Several reviews raise serious safety and sanitation issues. Reports include pests (ants and roaches), alleged rodents or “rat pit” conditions, mold in bathrooms that persisted after room changes, blood-stained sheets, and filthy rooms. Multiple accounts allege neglect leading to bed sores, untreated infections, and food/oral-care neglect. These are severe concerns that some reviewers say rendered the facility unsafe. There are also mentions of safety hazards such as blocked hallways due to wheelchair congestion and questions about bed rails (either not provided or restricted by regulation), which affect resident safety and mobility.
Theft, legal, and administrative problems: A number of reviewers report troubling administrative practices: billing errors or charges made without permission, perceived dishonesty by leadership, and at least one allegation of drug theft by an LPN now under police investigation. Families reported management as unresponsive when complaints were made. Some reviewers even called for the facility to be shut down, while others praise leadership and clinical management—again indicating inconsistent experiences depending on the case and timing.
Facilities, dining, and activities: Descriptions of the building and services are mixed. Several reviewers call the facility beautiful and home-like, while others describe rooms in disrepair, malfunctioning equipment, poor air conditioning, and shared bathrooms. Meal experiences vary widely—from praise for good food to complaints about inadequate or inappropriate meals (e.g., sandwiches on holidays). Multiple reviewers asked for more activities and resident engagement; social isolation and lack of programming were noted in a number of summaries.
Patterns and takeaways: The reviews suggest a facility with pockets of strong clinical and compassionate care—notably in therapy and among individual nurses—yet recurring systemic problems that affect resident safety and dignity. The most serious and recurring red flags are prolonged neglect of personal hygiene, sanitation/pest issues, untreated wounds or infections, allegations of theft, and administrative unresponsiveness. Positive reports frequently reference individual staff members and the therapy team, suggesting that when staffing and management align, care can be excellent. The divergence in experiences points to inconsistent implementation of policies and variable staff performance or turnover.
For prospective residents and families, these reviews recommend caution and targeted questions: confirm staffing ratios and response times, inspect cleanliness and pest-control records, ask about infection-control and mold remediation practices, verify billing procedures and any past incidents or investigations, and meet therapy staff if rehabilitation is a priority. Also, request recent state inspection reports and ask management to explain how they address complaints and correct systemic failures. The mixed nature of the feedback—ranging from “best experience ever” to “worst place” and “unsafe—urgent to escape”—means decisions should be driven by up-to-date facility audits, in-person observations, and direct conversations with current families when possible.
