Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but leans positive for clinical rehabilitation services and several elements of daily care, with significant negative outliers that raise concerns about consistency of nursing conduct and resident experience. The most consistently praised aspect is the facility’s rehabilitation program: multiple reviewers singled out individual therapists by name (Jake, Kelsey, Robert, James, Hailey) and described the rehab team as excellent, progressive, and client‑centered. Therapy is reported to have high patient engagement, clear/simple explanations, and staff who are readily available to answer questions. Families appear to value the therapeutic outcomes and communication around therapy plans and progress.
Beyond rehab, many reviewers describe the facility as clean, well‑maintained, and staffed by friendly, attentive nurses, CNAs, and physical therapists. Administration is described as competent by some reviewers, and several comments highlight compassionate, helpful staff and gratitude for care provided. COVID‑19 safety measures were mentioned positively by at least one reviewer. These positive reports suggest that for many residents the environment, basic nursing and aide care, and rehabilitation services meet expectations and sometimes exceed them.
However, the reviews also reveal serious negative experiences that contrast sharply with the positive reports. Specific complaints include rude or unprofessional behavior from nursing staff, and an alarming account of a nurse leaving a resident without prescribed pain medication and then walking out and never returning. Another reviewer noted a hygiene/appearance concern (a nurse observed without shoes), which contributes to perceptions of unprofessionalism. Some reviewers used very strong language — calling the place "horrible," "a disgrace to elderly residents," or "shameful" — indicating that at least a subset of families experienced significant dissatisfaction. Cost was also raised as a concern, with at least one reviewer labeling the facility "too expensive." These negative comments point to inconsistency in staff behavior and possible gaps in supervision, training, or policies that affect resident safety and dignity.
There is also an undercurrent about the social experience of residents: while care and therapy were praised, loneliness was explicitly mentioned, suggesting that social engagement or activity programming may be an area needing attention for some residents. Review content provided no specific details about dining quality or the breadth and regularity of activities, so no firm conclusions can be drawn in those domains beyond the loneliness comment. Similarly, while administration is praised in some reviews, the existence of starkly negative incidents implies management may need to address variability in frontline staff performance and communication with families regarding serious incidents.
In summary, prospective residents and families should expect strong rehabilitation services and many caring, professional staff members in a clean facility with competent administration. At the same time, they should be aware of reported inconsistencies in nursing conduct — including at least one serious allegation concerning medication and reports of unprofessional appearance — and episodes of resident loneliness. Those variability signals suggest asking direct questions during tours or admissions: inquire about nursing supervision and turnover, pain‑management protocols and incident reporting, staff training and hygiene policies, activity and social programs to address loneliness, and detailed cost/billing information. The overall pattern is one of generally high marks for therapy and many aspects of care, tempered by occasional but serious negative experiences that merit clarification before choosing the facility.
