Overall sentiment is strongly mixed, with a clear divide between reviewers who experienced compassionate, effective rehabilitation and long-term care and those who reported serious safety, cleanliness, and management failures. A significant portion of reviews praise the direct care staff — nurses, CNAs, and therapists — as caring, responsive, and skilled. Many families and residents described quick responses to call buttons (when functional), respectful communication, and a home-like atmosphere created by staff who go above and beyond. The therapy/rehab department receives repeated positive mentions: residents report successful rehab outcomes, professional PT/OT, and would recommend returning for rehabilitation services.
Contrasting sharply with those positive experiences are multiple reviews describing severe facility and clinical concerns. These include reports of persistent urine/feces and mold odors, ants, messy rooms, and an overall lack of effective cleaning and disinfectant presence; several comments explicitly connect poor cleanliness to infection risk. Some reviewers claim nonexistent or poor air ventilation, which they link to respiratory problems and infections. There are serious clinical allegations in some reviews: dehydration, infections, pneumonia, transfers to ICU, and multiple emergency department visits. These reports were strong enough that a few families removed loved ones from the facility and issued warnings to others.
Management and leadership emerge as a recurring theme of concern. Reviewers cite frequent administrator turnover (one claimed eight ED visits in three years and multiple administrators), poor responses from management when issues were raised, and a lack of visible leadership to enforce standards. This appears to correlate with inconsistent care quality: while some shifts or units are described as excellent and staffed by committed caregivers, others are described as delivering only the bare minimum, with examples of unprofessional behavior (jokes about medications, inattentiveness). The variability suggests staffing, training, or oversight gaps rather than a uniformly poor or uniformly excellent operation.
Dining and facility amenities are likewise inconsistent in reviews. Some residents and families praise specific foods (notably a favorite pizza mentioned by name) and find the environment social and welcoming; others report horrible food, microwaved or frozen items passed off as meals, and accusations of corner-cutting. Facility problems such as non-working TVs, outdated areas, and intermittent failures of call buttons are repeatedly mentioned. While a remodel is noted positively by staff and some reviewers, other areas are still perceived as outdated and in need of repair and improved sanitation.
Taken together, the reviews portray a facility with strong strengths in direct caregiving and therapy outcomes when staffing and leadership align, but with serious risks tied to cleanliness, infection control, facility maintenance, and management responsiveness. The polarized experiences indicate that quality may depend heavily on specific units, shifts, or staff present at a given time. Prospective residents and families should be cautious: tour the facility multiple times, inspect cleanliness (rooms, bathrooms, ventilation), test call systems and TVs, ask about recent infection-control incidents and ED transfer rates, inquire about administrative turnover and staffing ratios, and speak directly with the therapy team about expected rehab outcomes. For those seeking rehabilitation services and who encounter the praised therapy staff and caring caregivers, the facility can provide very good care; for those encountering the problems described, the environment may pose safety and dignity concerns.
