Overall sentiment in the reviews is sharply mixed, with clear polarization between strong praise for individual caregivers and consistent, serious complaints about systemic failures. Many reviews highlight standout employees — nurses (notably Kapiece and Ronetta), certain CNAs, therapy staff, admissions personnel like Arielle, and activity staff such as Tara and Turrether Davis — whose compassion, responsiveness, and clinical skill produced positive outcomes (wound healing, regained mobility, effective rehab and in-house dialysis). Several families specifically credited proactive administrators and a Director of Nursing with good communication, family updates, and advocacy. Some reviewers also reported a generally clean, welcoming environment and praised new management efforts to improve care and processes.
Counterbalancing those positives are numerous and recurrent allegations of neglect and safety lapses. Multiple reviews describe severe neglect: wounds left untreated, residents left in wet diapers, failure to turn immobile residents leading to bed sores, lack of toileting assistance, leaving residents in feces for long periods, inadequate bathing, and poor feeding/hydration. There are several mentions of consequent medical complications — pneumonia, infections, aspiration events, and at least one allegation tied to a resident death. Falls with delayed emergency response and serious injury (reported brain bleeds) and instances of aspiration through a vent tube were cited. These safety and clinical failures are among the most serious and recurring themes and have prompted state board complaints and threats of legal action.
Facility and operational concerns are another consistent cluster. Multiple reviewers reported aging or dilapidated physical conditions: ineffective HVAC or no real air conditioning, extreme heat in parts of the building, cracked walls, dirty rooms, strong odors (including marijuana), and insufficient maintenance (large trash cans in rooms, broken fixtures). Kitchen and dining complaints are frequent: poor food quality, choking risks, lack of fresh water, inadequate utensils, weight loss among residents, and reports of an unsafe or excessively hot kitchen environment. There were also reports about room layout concerns (some rooms lacking bathrooms) and theft or missing personal items, which further damage trust.
Administrative and communication problems recur throughout the reviews. Common complaints include unreturned phone calls, slow or non-existent responses from management, denial of deliveries at the front desk, billing errors and alleged overcharges, and poor discharge planning (including missing home-health documentation). Some families reported strict or inconsistent visitor/delivery policies and COVID noncompliance in certain instances, which created additional distress. At the same time, other families praised particular administrators and staff for excellent communication, showing that responsiveness is uneven and often person-dependent rather than systemic.
A striking pattern is the extreme variability in care depending on staff, shift, and recent management changes. Many reviews contrast "amazing staff" who provided compassionate, effective care with other staff described as lazy, neglectful, or abusive. This inconsistency extends to different functional areas: clinical care (nursing and wound care), therapy and rehab (often praised), housekeeping and dining (often criticized), and front-desk/administrative responsiveness (mixed). Several reviewers specifically note improvements under new management, suggesting that leadership changes have begun to address some issues, but other reviews indicate that significant problems persist.
Taken together, the reviews suggest a facility with valuable clinical resources (in-house dialysis, strong therapists, and several highly capable caregivers) but also systemic shortcomings in staffing reliability, facility maintenance, dining services, and administrative oversight. The most urgent concerns raised — neglect, uncontrolled infections, aspiration, unaddressed wounds, delayed emergency response, theft, and alleged fatalities — represent serious risk areas that families and regulators would reasonably prioritize. Positive reports indicate the capacity for high-quality, resident-centered care when the right staff and leadership are present; however, the frequency and severity of negative reports show that quality is inconsistent and that oversight, staffing stability, training, and facility improvements are needed to make the positive experiences more reliable and universal.
For prospective residents or families: ask specifically about staffing ratios, wound-care protocols, toileting and turning schedules, emergency response procedures, recent state inspections and any corrective actions, HVAC and room conditions, dining menus and monitoring for choking risks, and examples of staff turnover. When visiting, observe multiple shifts if possible, talk with the therapy and nursing leadership, and request written confirmation of discharge planning and home health documentation procedures. The facility appears capable of excellent care in many cases, but the documented variability and serious adverse allegations mean due diligence is essential before admitting a loved one.
