Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but centers on a facility that is physically appealing and strong on rehabilitation and memory-care programming, yet has notable and recurring concerns about staff behavior and responsiveness. Many reviewers praise the facility's appearance and amenities: it is repeatedly described as newly remodeled, clean, modern, and home-like. The therapy gym, active calendar of events, transportation services, and a dedicated memory care wing are highlighted as concrete strengths. Multiple commenters specifically recommend the site for rehabilitation and note knowledgeable therapy staff and a rehab-focused approach.
Staffing and interpersonal care emerge as the most polarized theme. A substantial number of reviews describe staff as compassionate, polite, long-tenured, and emotionally supportive—reviewers mention smiling, welcoming employees, caring leadership, and pride among team members. These comments emphasize kindness, rehabilitation success, and staff dedication. However, these positive reports sit alongside serious negative accounts: several reviews report rude or unprofessional behavior, contemptuous or judgmental treatment, and lack of empathy in at least some encounters. There is an explicit complaint about poor end-of-life care and allegations that some caregivers shamed families. The contrast between many positive staff appraisals and some very negative interpersonal experiences points to inconsistency in staff performance or variability between shifts/individuals.
Operational issues and responsiveness are another recurring concern. Reviewers raise problems with communication—phones not being answered, call lights receiving slow or inadequate responses, and families experiencing poor or one-sided communication. High patient-to-CNA ratios were cited, and some reviewers characterize nursing staff as unhelpful in certain situations. Specific staff members are named in complaints (Connie the social worker and nurse Shannon), which suggests isolated but memorable negative interactions for some families. Additionally, at least one review expresses worry about state surveys, indicating possible questions about regulatory compliance or inspection outcomes; this is a notable red flag given the seriousness of regulatory findings.
Facilities, programming, and community aspects receive consistently positive mentions. The memory-care programming and dementia-focused activities are repeatedly highlighted as strengths, and the facility's family-like atmosphere, active social calendar, and involvement with the community are seen as meaningful benefits for residents. Reviewers who value rehabilitation frequently call the site "perfect for rehabilitation," and several recommend it highly. Leadership is described positively in several reviews, and long-tenured staff are cited as assets, suggesting pockets of stability and institutional knowledge.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility with strong physical attributes and programs—especially for rehab and memory care—and many caring, long-standing employees. At the same time, there are serious and specific concerns about inconsistent staff behavior, communication breakdowns, responsiveness to resident needs (call lights/phones), staffing ratios, and at least one troubling account of poor end-of-life care. Prospective families should weigh the facility's clear strengths in environment and programming against the variability in interpersonal care reported by different reviewers and should seek direct clarification from management about staffing levels, complaint resolution, and any recent state surveys or corrective actions.
