Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly mixed but leans heavily toward negative, with a recurring pattern of poor day-to-day nursing and aide care punctuated by pockets of good rehabilitation services and a few compassionate staff members. Many reviewers describe systemic problems that impact basic safety and dignity: slow or nonexistent responses to call buttons, residents left unattended for extended periods (including crying out or wetting themselves), missed medications and treatments, and significant maintenance and cleanliness failures. These issues are described as ongoing rather than isolated incidents, resulting in multiple families reporting that loved ones declined while at the facility or had to be transferred elsewhere.
Care quality and staffing is the most frequently mentioned theme. Numerous accounts describe aides and nurses as uncaring, overwhelmed, distracted (texting or on phones), or viewing the work strictly as a job rather than patient-centered care. Call lights frequently go unanswered; staff are reported as slow to assist with toileting, transfers, bathing, and wound care. Serious clinical lapses are reported in several summaries: missed or delayed administration of medications and IVs, neglected wound care, pain and inflammation that is not promptly addressed, and a near-fatal lapse in BiPAP management. Dialysis care is described as particularly problematic in some reviews — being performed in hallways, patients left unattended, and staff not monitoring patients appropriately.
Facility condition and maintenance are another consistent concern. Multiple reviewers mention dirty rooms, crumbs, ants, roaches, and trash remaining for days. Furniture and patient equipment are frequently reported as old, broken, or unsafe (broken wardrobes, bed clips, holes in walls, unreliable TVs). At the same time, a subset of reviewers state the facility was spotless and immaculately clean; this contrast suggests either uneven cleanliness by unit/shift or significant variability over time. Several families also described bait-and-switch situations where initial rooms looked acceptable but the assigned rooms were cramped, run-down, or shared with poor furnishings.
Dining, dietary management, and nutrition recur as problematic. Several reviews report late dinners, unsuitable menu items, failure to follow renal or other therapeutic diets, and no patient menus provided. Others praise the food and say residents enjoyed meals; again, this indicates inconsistency between shifts/units or differing experiences among residents. Food-related communication failures (kitchen not informed of dietary restrictions or wrong food served) are repeatedly noted and are tied to poor clinical outcomes for patients with strict diets.
Communication, transparency, and management responsiveness are frequently criticized. Families report little or no information at admission, long waits for answers from social workers or administration, charts with incorrect patient data, and administration that is unresponsive to complaints or regulatory inquiries. There are multiple claims of staff passing responsibility (“buck-passing”), lack of accountability, and a director-level staff member seen smoking outside the building — behaviors that undermine confidence in leadership. Theft or loss of personal belongings (phones, iPads) is reported in several reviews, compounding concerns about security and management oversight.
Despite many negative reports, there are notable positives that recur and are important to highlight. Several reviewers specifically commend the rehabilitation team — describing therapy as excellent, meaningful, and something residents looked forward to. A number of families and residents named individual staff (nurses, aides, or social workers) as caring, competent, and attentive. Some units or shifts are described as clean, well-staffed, and full of activities with good morning therapy programming. A small number of reviewers felt the facility offered a safe environment and that basic needs were met reliably.
Patterns and actionable concerns: The most consistent and serious patterns are slow/no response to call bells, neglect of basic care needs (hygiene, toileting, wound care), medication and respiratory device lapses, and inconsistent cleanliness and meal management. There is also a pattern of inconsistency between rehabilitation services (often good) and routine nursing/aide care (often poor). Reports of theft, unresponsive administration, and lack of accountability indicate systemic management problems rather than single-staff issues. The mixed reports of excellent cleanliness and care in some units suggest variability by unit, shift, or time — families considering this facility should probe for which units have the best staffing and leadership and verify current regulatory and inspection records.
In summary, these reviews paint a facility with substantial variability: pockets of high-quality rehab and some compassionate staff exist amid widespread reports of neglect, poor responsiveness, cleanliness and maintenance failures, dietary and medication errors, and ineffective management. If evaluating this facility, potential residents and families should thoroughly investigate current staffing levels, leadership stability, complaint history, unit-specific conditions, and how dietary and clinical needs (dialysis, respiratory support, wound care) are managed and monitored. The frequency and severity of the negative reports — including safety-critical incidents — warrant caution and closer scrutiny before placement, even while acknowledging the positive experiences some families reported.
