Overall sentiment in these review summaries is mixed but heavily weighted toward serious concerns. Multiple reviewers report significant care-quality failures, hygiene problems, and staffing shortages that have direct, negative consequences for resident safety and dignity. At the same time, reviewers consistently note pockets of good performance — individual caregivers, social services, and the rehab/respiratory teams receive praise — indicating that quality is uneven and highly dependent on which staff are on duty.
Care quality and safety: The most alarming and recurrent themes relate to neglect and unsafe clinical care. Reviews describe long call-light response times, especially on evenings and weekends, residents being left soiled or with diapers in bed, infrequent turning and bathing, pressure ulcers and other wounds, and documented infections (UTIs) that progressed to sepsis requiring ICU stays. There are multiple mentions of dried blood and secretions on residents' faces and general unsanitary conditions. Several reviewers used strong language — neglect, abuse, demoralizing/inhumane treatment — and one reviewer recounted a ventilated patient who was left unattended with delayed notification to the family after a code. These reports suggest failures in basic nursing care, infection control, and monitoring.
Staffing and staff behavior: Staffing shortages are a dominant theme and are tied directly to many quality problems. Reviews repeatedly state evenings and weekends are worse, agency staff are frequently used (and sometimes do not show), and aides are occasionally absent. While some staff members are described as friendly, knowledgeable, and caring, other staff — particularly some CNAs — are described as rude, unprofessional, or engaging in misconduct. Supervisory and management behavior also draws criticism: a director of nursing (DON) is described as having a negative attitude, and reviewers warn that chronic short-staffing could risk licenses or certifications. There are also specific reports of staff smoking outside the facility and of harassment or bullying by staff toward residents or families.
Facility, amenities, and environment: Physical environment complaints include a dark atmosphere, foul smells, plain and outdated rooms, lack of courtyard/outdoor space, and absence of in-room TVs. Some reviews mention abandoned buildings nearby, which contributes to a prison-like or institutional perception. However, there are counterpoints: a few reviewers reported clean-smelling conditions and described their stay as pleasant. Activities and social programs receive mixed but generally positive mentions: bingo, a social dayroom, and a highly praised senior prom are cited as bright spots that engage residents.
Clinical specialties and notable capabilities: The facility appears to have certain clinical strengths — most notably respiratory services and the capacity to accept ventilated patients, with at least one reviewer explicitly noting 24-hour respiratory therapy on staff. Reviewers who needed respiratory care or rehabilitation sometimes reported good outcomes, saying the rehab team and respiratory therapy staff produced effective treatment where previous facilities had not.
Management, regulation, and consumer safety signals: Several reviews raise regulatory and systemic concerns: a one-star Medicare rating is noted, and at least one reviewer suggests contacting public health and references state surveys. These are serious red flags for prospective residents and families. Reviewers also express frustration with management responsiveness and professionalism, and some suggest the facility needs a comprehensive overhaul.
Patterns and variability: The overall picture is of high variability in care and experience. Positive comments about individual compassionate staff members, helpful social services, and strong respiratory/rehab teams coexist with repeated reports of neglect, infection, abusive behavior, and inadequate supervision. This variability suggests that resident outcomes may depend heavily on staffing patterns and which employees are working — with particularly poor experiences clustered on nights/weekends or during staff shortages.
Implications for families and prospective residents: Given the mix of serious negative reports and some strong clinical capabilities, families should approach this facility with caution. Important steps for anyone considering placement would include: in-person tours on multiple days/times (including weekends/evenings), asking for current staffing ratios and turnover rates, requesting recent state survey results and infection-control data, verifying respiratory staff availability for ventilator-dependent residents, and observing cleanliness and smell in resident areas. Families should also inquire about communication protocols for clinical changes and emergencies, and whether management has plans to address the cited staffing and hygiene problems.
In summary, these reviews paint a facility with notable clinical capabilities (particularly respiratory and rehab) and several dedicated, caring employees, but also systemic staffing shortages, inconsistent caregiving, serious hygiene and safety complaints, and management issues. The negative reports — including neglect, infections, wounds, rude or abusive staff behavior, and regulatory concerns — are frequent and significant, and they appear to be concentrated during understaffed shifts. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility's ability to meet specialized needs against the documented risks and should verify current conditions and corrective actions before placement.
