Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed but leans toward serious concern, with a clear split between isolated positive experiences (particularly in assisted living and therapy/rehab areas) and numerous, recurring reports of neglect, safety failures, and poor administration—especially related to memory care and nursing-level services.
Care quality: Reviews describe two distinct patterns. On the positive side, several reviewers praise individual staff members, skilled therapy teams, wound care specialists, and some nurses for delivering attentive care that produced good outcomes (for example, helping a patient regain mobility). Assisted living was rated highly by some families, with immediate placement working well and residents adjusting successfully. Conversely, an alarming number of reviews detail neglect and serious medical lapses: dehydration, underfeeding, withholding water, lack of turning resulting in bed sores, unmanaged pain, falls leading to hospitalization, ICU admissions, coma, and even death. There are also reports of a CPR-related incident that raised concerns about emergency response and clinical competence. Memory care, in particular, receives many negative mentions, with explicit warnings that the facility is not recommended for Alzheimer's patients.
Staff and communication: Reviews consistently describe a mixed staff experience. Many reviewers single out compassionate and patient staff members, a helpful social services director, and nurses/CNAs who advocate with insurers and families. However, these positives are contrasted by frequent reports of unprofessional behavior: rude or insensitive receptionists who hang up, phone staff with a dismissive attitude, and administration described as disorganized or outright terrible. Several reviewers report poor communication during critical moments (including insensitive behavior during mourning) and inconsistent responsiveness to family concerns. This inconsistency suggests variability by shift, unit, or individual employee rather than uniform facility performance.
Facilities and safety: Multiple reviewers call out hazardous physical conditions and maintenance problems. Specific complaints include rusty bathroom pipes, rooms without sinks or bathrooms, plaster peeling, AC failures, horrid stench, and bed placements against walls. More severe safety allegations include nonfunctional fire doors or sprinklers, privacy violations (peep holes in public restrooms), and general unsanitary conditions (rooms not cleaned between residents). These issues, combined with reports of wandering residents and screaming incidents, paint a picture of an environment where both physical infrastructure and safety protocols may be inadequate.
Administration, operations, and financial concerns: Administrative and operational shortcomings are a repeated theme. Families describe a disorganized front office, inconsistent billing/insurance practices, and questions about the facility’s Medicare listing. Several reviewers complain about high costs and rooms described as overpriced, making the facility a significant financial burden for some families. There are also mentions of lawsuits and reported bankruptcy, which amplify concerns about the facility’s stability and oversight.
Dining and amenities: Food quality is a clear negative theme; reviewers frequently call the food “terrible.” Other amenity-related complaints include nonworking remotes and lack of in-room telephones. While some administrative staff make proactive follow-up calls, the overall service experience around basic resident comforts and dignity (meals, clean rooms, functioning amenities) appears inconsistent and often unsatisfactory.
Patterns and overall assessment: The reviews indicate a polarized experience. When care is good, reviewers describe compassionate staff, effective therapy, and positive outcomes; these accounts tend to refer to assisted living or specific employees. When care is poor, issues are severe—risking resident safety and health—and often tied to memory care and nursing services. The recurrence of extreme negative reports (neglect, bed sores, hospitalizations, hygiene failures, and alleged abuse) suggests systemic problems rather than isolated incidents in some areas of the facility. The presence of both glowing and dire reports within the same facility points to high variability in quality that likely depends on staffing, unit management, and oversight at particular times.
Implications for families: Based on these summaries, prospective residents and families should approach placement with caution. Important steps would include an in-person tour focused on facility cleanliness and safety systems (fire/sprinkler functionality), asking for up-to-date staffing ratios and turnover data, reviewing recent state inspection reports and complaint history, speaking to families of current residents in the same care unit (especially memory care), and verifying how the facility manages clinical emergencies, wound care, turning schedules, hydration, and falls prevention. If memory care or higher-level nursing services are required, extra scrutiny is warranted given the concentrated negative reports in those areas. Conversely, if considering only the assisted living portion, families may encounter better experiences, but variability remains a significant risk.
In summary, the review set reveals meaningful strengths among certain staff and therapy services but substantial and repeated concerns about safety, basic care, facility upkeep, administration, and consistency—particularly in memory care and nursing areas. These patterns call for careful due diligence before placement and confirm the need to verify current conditions and regulatory standing directly with the facility and state oversight bodies.
