Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: a notable portion of reviewers offer strong, specific praise for individual staff members and rehabilitation services, while a large and serious group of reviews describe systemic problems with cleanliness, staffing, and basic care. The pattern indicates inconsistency in day-to-day operations and outcomes — some residents receive attentive, skilled care and positive social engagement, while others experience neglect, safety hazards, and alarming lapses in clinical attention.
Care quality and clinical concerns are among the most frequent and serious themes. Multiple reviewers report wounds and bedsores not being properly managed, delayed responses to pain and urgent needs, and a perceived increased risk of infection. There are explicit accounts of staff advising against emergency evaluation, delays or refusal to respond at night, and at least one family describing a rash that persisted until the patient’s death. Conversely, other reviewers describe professional nurses and excellent rehabilitation technicians who provide effective therapy and follow-up. This sharp divergence suggests large variability by shift, unit, or specific care teams.
Staffing, communication, and professionalism are recurring issues. Several reviews describe chronic understaffing and the need for more aides and nurses; CNAs are often described as hardworking but overextended. Night shift unresponsiveness and slow call-light response times are commonly cited. Communication problems include rude front-desk behavior, phones not being answered, a social worker described as too busy, and families experiencing poor or hostile interactions. At the same time, some reviewers single out an exceptional admissions coordinator and named nurses/aides (Ashley, Akii, Reggie) as evidence of caring staff. This again points to inconsistent performance across individuals and shifts.
Facility condition and safety concerns appear prominently in negative reviews. Several families report a filthy facility with urine odor, roach infestations, mold, and visible ceiling damage; one review specifically mentions an electrical fire hazard. Others describe the building as run-down and in need of remodeling or replacement. These environmental concerns are tied in reviews to clinical risk (infections, wound complications) and to the overall quality-of-life experience (small rooms, “jail-like” atmosphere reported by some). However, a subset of reviewers say the facility is clean and has a loving, healing atmosphere, reinforcing the overall theme of highly variable experiences.
Activities, socialization, and supportive services receive generally positive mentions. Reviewers note church services, bible study, socialization opportunities, and organized activities. Some families feel their relatives were socially engaged and well-cared-for on certain units or shifts. The facility is identified as Medicare-approved for rehabilitation and nursing care, and a number of reviewers praise the rehabilitation program and technicians.
Management and review authenticity are additional themes. Several reviewers applaud management and reliable teams, while others call out hostility or unprofessionalism from staff and leadership. There are also mentions that some positive reviews may come from staff or be otherwise unrepresentative, and a few submissions were garbled or lacked actionable detail, making it harder to assess when experiences are outliers versus representative.
In summary, the reviews show a facility with pockets of strong, compassionate, and professional care — particularly in admissions, certain nurses, aides, and rehabilitation technicians — but paired with substantial and recurring reports of poor sanitation, understaffing, safety hazards, communication breakdowns, and inconsistent delivery of clinical care. These patterns suggest risk of significant variability by unit, shift, or individual staff members. For anyone considering this facility, the review set supports the need for careful, in-person assessment of cleanliness, infection-control practices, staffing levels (including night shift), pest control, and direct conversations with families and day/night staff to understand how consistent the positive experiences are and whether the negative issues have been addressed.
