Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed, with a clear divide between praise for individual caregivers and significant concern about the facility environment, consistency of nursing care, and infection/safety risks. Multiple reviewers repeatedly call out the staff — nurses, aides and therapists — as a strong point, describing them as friendly, kind, attentive, and willing to help residents and families. Therapy services (speech and physical therapy) receive positive mentions, and some family members explicitly state they feel comfortable with the care and would recommend the facility. New leadership (an Administrator and Director of Nursing) and a named Director (Erica) are cited as positive developments by reviewers who feel the building and care “have come a long way.” A social worker’s assistance at discharge was also positively noted.
At the same time, a number of reviews raise serious concerns about the physical environment and hygiene standards. The building is described as outdated and poorly cared for, with multiple specific cleanliness issues: persistent urine odor, dirty and stained furniture, filthy baseboards, dirty blinds, visible water damage, poor lighting, and even a dead cockroach found in a resident room. These environmental deficiencies contribute to an impression of neglect and raise legitimate concerns about infection control and resident comfort.
Care quality appears inconsistent. While therapy staff and some agency nurses are praised, other reviewers report worrying lapses in basic nursing care: residents reportedly were not bathed, had unchanged clothing for days, and were left without feeding assistance when needed (food trays left on the floor or unattended for hours). One reviewer reported aspiration pneumonia severe enough to require hospital transfer, which suggests a potential risk related to feeding or swallowing management and highlights a serious safety outcome cited in the reviews.
Perceptions of management and professionalism are mixed. Several reviewers praise administrative visibility and responsiveness, noting regular checks on patients and accessibility of specific leaders. Conversely, other reviews describe an uncaring administrator and nonprofessional or rude staff, indicating uneven leadership or variability in staff behavior. Dependence on agency staff is mentioned; while some agency nurses provided good care, reliance on temporary staff could contribute to inconsistent standards and communication.
Taken together, the reviews reveal a facility with clear strengths in staff compassion and therapy programming but with persistent and significant weaknesses in facility maintenance, cleanliness, and consistent nursing care. The most frequently noted themes are the dichotomy between caring individual staff members and systemic problems (dirty environment, inconsistent hygiene and feeding assistance), plus the safety concern exemplified by an aspiration pneumonia readmission. Families considering this facility should weigh the positive interpersonal care and therapy outcomes against documented environmental and safety issues and the variability in management responsiveness reported across reviewers.
