Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized, with multiple families reporting both strong, compassionate care and severe lapses that endangered residents. A substantial subset of reviewers describe the facility as having dedicated, friendly staff, a welcoming atmosphere, good food, and effective therapy and activities. Conversely, an equally strong subset describes neglectful care, serious safety and hygiene problems, and troubling administrative practices. The pattern suggests significant inconsistency in care quality—some reviewers report clear improvements after leadership changes, while others describe systemic problems that persisted or caused harm.
Care quality is one of the most prominent and divisive themes. Positive comments highlight staff who treat residents with dignity, successful physical therapy that improved mobility and weight loss, and instances of attentive, respectful nursing care. Several reviewers praised new management and a new director of nursing for making tangible improvements: increased staffing, cleaner facilities, fresh paint and linens, more accessible leadership, and 24/7 phone availability. Those accounts depict a facility moving toward better standards and more family confidence.
However, strong negative reports describe neglect that ranges from poor hygiene (residents unbathed, soiled or unchanged clothing, urine odor) to serious medical failures (grade 4 pressure ulcers, painful sores, hospitalization). Multiple reviewers reported staff ignoring requests, slow responses to call lights, leaving residents in urine overnight, and not changing soiled linens. There are alarming allegations of unsafe restraint, improper diapering and wheelchair use, and at least one report of a death in care accompanied by disrespectful handling of the deceased. These accounts portray situations that put residents’ health and safety at risk and sparked calls from families that the facility should be shut down.
Facility condition and infection control are recurring concerns. Many reviewers described the building as old, run-down, dark, and depressing, with decades-old rooms in need of interior and exterior renovation. Specific pest and cleanliness complaints include roach eggs in drawers, giant spider webs above beds, a bug-zapper hallway with dead insects, stained linens, and urine odors. Other safety-related equipment issues were mentioned, such as a broken bed and reports that nurse-call buttons were turned off. Positive reviewers who experienced the facility after recent management changes reported markedly cleaner conditions and a fresh, pleasant smell—indicating that improvements are possible but not yet uniformly established.
Staffing, training, and communication also show a split picture. Many families praised individual staff members (nurses, aides, kitchen staff) as kind, hardworking, and professional. At the same time, numerous reviews point to understaffing, inexperienced or unknowledgeable personnel, and lazy or distracted behavior (staff facetiming instead of caring, nurses leaning against counters). Communication problems are frequent: families reported that the facility directed communication through a single family member, gave confusing or incomplete information, had slow phone responses, and put relatives on hold. Some reviews also claimed the facility prioritized administrative tasks (benefits signing) over direct resident care.
Clinical and safety concerns extend to medication administration and personal property. Several reviewers alleged medication errors or medications given contrary to the patient’s and family’s understanding. Theft was reported (an SSI debit card), and other families reported lost clothing and dentures—issues that erode trust and raise questions about internal controls. There were also reports of therapy being withheld or inadequate, leading to regression for some residents, contrasted with accounts of effective, helpful therapy for others.
Management and trajectory: multiple reviews highlighted a turning point after leadership changes—new administrators and a new director of nursing were associated with increased staffing, better cleanliness, revamped linens, improved morale among residents and families, and more responsive communication. These accounts suggest that management plays a crucial role in the facility’s current variability. Nonetheless, the existence of many severe prior problems (and some continuing ones) means prospective residents and families should verify the current state in person.
In summary, the reviews present a facility with a highly mixed reputation: pockets of very good care and meaningful recent improvements exist alongside documented, serious shortcomings in hygiene, safety, staffing, communication, and facility condition. The most frequent and significant negative issues—pressure ulcers, neglect, pest problems, medication and restraint concerns, theft, and loss/damage of belongings—are serious red flags. At the same time, positive reports about caring staff, good food, effective therapy, and visible improvements under new leadership offer hope that conditions can and have improved. For families considering this facility, the reviews suggest performing careful, repeated unannounced visits, asking for recent quality metrics and incident reports, verifying staffing levels and turnover, inspecting resident rooms and common areas for cleanliness and pests, confirming therapy plans and medication policies in writing, and monitoring communication channels and responsiveness from administration. These steps will help determine whether the positive changes reported by some families are consistent and sustained.
