Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed but trends toward negative, with a substantial number of serious and recurring concerns about resident safety, basic care, hygiene, communication, and management practices. While multiple reviewers praise individual staff members, specific units (notably an all-female Memory Springs program and some memory-care staff), and occasional positive outcomes in rehabilitation, the dominant themes are neglect, poor oversight, and inconsistent care. Many reviewers describe experiences severe enough to consider the facility unsafe or unacceptable for long-term or short-term placement.
Care quality and clinical issues: A large portion of reviews detail clinical failures — missed or wrong medications (including insulin), medication shortages, inconsistent dosing, delayed wound care, and untreated bedsores. Several accounts indicate residents were left in soiled diapers, left in bed for extended periods, or had delayed showers and personal care. There are also reports that residents did not receive promised rehabilitation services. These descriptions point to systemic problems in day-to-day clinical operations and monitoring, and several reviewers state that lack of doctor access and delayed wound nurse involvement compounded poor outcomes.
Staff behavior and communication: Reports of caring, knowledgeable, and empathetic staff appear frequently alongside numerous allegations of rudeness, disrespect, and unprofessional conduct. Multiple reviewers said staff were unresponsive to calls and family inquiries, voicemail and phone calls went unanswered, and emails were ignored. There are serious allegations such as overnight staff sleeping on duty, nurses being lazy or unhelpful, and at least one allegation of a physical push/shove by an overnight nurse. Some staff members and departments — admissions, certain nurses, and the wound nurse — receive distinct praise, indicating uneven performance across shifts and teams.
Safety, abuse, and misconduct: Several reviews raise grave safety concerns including discriminatory comments (reportedly toward African residents and residents with disabilities), alleged theft of residents’ belongings, and financial exploitation (taking SSI/SSA checks without informing families). There are reports of police involvement, a body found unattended in a bed, privacy breaches, and accusations that administration attempts to cover up incidents. These issues suggest not just staffing and care shortfalls but potentially deeper problems in oversight, safeguarding, and regulatory compliance.
Facilities, cleanliness, and environment: Cleanliness reports are polarized: some reviewers describe parts of the facility as clean and well-maintained, while many more describe pervasive urine and feces odors, dirty rooms and bathrooms, infrequent linen changes, hard mattresses, broken equipment, and overcrowded shared rooms. The smell and sanitation complaints are frequent and severe in several reviews, contributing to an overall impression of poor environmental hygiene in multiple parts of the facility.
Dining and dietary care: Numerous reviewers criticized the food as terrible, repetitive, and not tailored to individual dietary needs. Several comments note the same meals served to everyone regardless of diet restrictions. Other reviewers found the food acceptable, but the dominant pattern is dissatisfaction with meal quality and dietary management.
Management, administration, and policies: Multiple reviewers accuse management of sweeping problems under the rug, prioritizing money over resident care, and misrepresenting availability or responsiveness. Reports include refusal to provide corporate contact information, long unanswered calls, new management being perceived as worse by some families, price increases in facility stores, inconsistency in policies (lockdowns, pass systems), and an overall impression of poor leadership. At the same time, a number of reviews praise specific administrators, directors, or the admissions team for helpfulness and compassion, indicating leadership quality is uneven or variable across roles.
Activities and memory care: Feedback on programming is mixed. Several reviewers strongly praise the Memory Springs unit and memory-care programming, noting engaging activities, professional staff, and a positive environment that families recommend. Conversely, other reviews report little to no activities, no Covid-friendly options, phones removed from residents, and general lack of stimulation for residents. This contrast suggests some units (notably the Memory Springs program) provide a higher level of engagement than the facility overall.
Staffing, workload, and workplace culture: Many reviews point to understaffing, long CNA/nurse shifts, staff burnout, and poor workplace morale, which reviewers tie directly to lapses in care. A few reviewers report it is a great place to work with caring staff and good culture, again highlighting inconsistencies. There are also troubling accusations of staff theft and drug use, which, if substantiated, represent severe regulatory and safety violations.
Notable patterns and final assessment: The reviews reveal a bifurcated picture: isolated pockets of high-quality care and compassionate staff coexist with widespread reports of neglect, poor hygiene, medication errors, unsafe conditions, and problematic management. The frequency and severity of negative reports — including safety incidents, medication problems, theft allegations, and sanitation issues — form a consistent pattern that many reviewers found unacceptable. For prospective families, these reviews recommend extreme caution: verify current leadership and staffing, tour units of interest (especially memory-care if that is the need), speak directly with nursing leadership about medication management and wound care processes, and check recent inspection reports and complaint history. While some individuals had positive experiences, the preponderance of serious complaints suggests systemic problems that should be investigated before placement.
