Overall sentiment from the collected reviews is strongly mixed, with a clear polarization between positive experiences focused on individual staff members and negative reports describing systemic problems. A recurring pattern is that many reviewers praise the compassion, friendliness, and dedication of specific employees or departments—staff who go out of their way to help residents, provide personal touches (small gifts, extra attention), and support families. Several reviews explicitly state that the staff treated residents like family, creating a warm atmosphere and making the facility a pleasant place to visit. There are also comments indicating departmental teamwork and employee retention (some staff with years of tenure), and a few reviewers say the facility is clean and well-run under newer administration.
At the same time, there are multiple, significant negative themes that cannot be overlooked. Several reviewers report rude or abusive staff behavior, including residents being yelled at. There are serious allegations of staff misconduct and false reporting, with at least one account of an unreported, large full-thickness wound—an indication of potentially dangerous lapses in clinical oversight and documentation. Comments that physicians do not visit in person and that only phone updates are provided to the person in charge point to possible shortcomings in medical oversight and family communication. These issues suggest variability in clinical quality and the potential for harm when standards are not uniformly maintained.
Facility conditions and environmental concerns are another major cluster of complaints. Multiple reviewers describe the building as old, outdated, and in need of updates; specific mentions include halls that reek of urine, filthy rooms, clutter or 'stuff' on the floor, and equipment that is old or condemned. These observations raise infection-control and safety concerns. Transportation is also criticized: the facility's van is reported as too small for some wheelchairs and lacking a heater, which raises practical and safety concerns for resident transport in cold weather. Conversely, some reviewers report a clean facility, which reinforces the sense of inconsistency between different units, shifts, or time periods.
Dining emerges as a frequent point of dissatisfaction: poor food quality, incorrect meals, and specific concerns about diabetes dietary management are reported. At least one reviewer explicitly calls meals 'disgusting.' These complaints, combined with reports of understaffing and underpaid employees, suggest operational strain that could be affecting meal preparation, dietary accuracy, and overall resident experience. Yet some positive anecdotes—such as staff offering a soda or small comforts—show that staff attempts at personal care do occur despite other systemic problems.
Management and organizational issues are mixed in the reviews. A few reviewers note that new administration is 'super nice' and that leadership and staff overall are improved, but other reviews accuse administration of non-transparency or lying and describe unprofessional incident handling (e.g., no-show accusations, 30-day restrictions). This split points to either recent changes in leadership or inconsistent practices in administration and incident response. Understaffing and perceived low wages are repeatedly cited as contributing factors; in turn this can explain variability in care quality, staff demeanor, and facility upkeep.
In summary, the reviews paint a complex picture: the facility has many staff members who are compassionate, committed, and valued by residents and families, and there are reports of good departmental teamwork and positive visitor experiences. However, there are also multiple serious and recurring complaints—ranging from rude or abusive behavior and alleged misconduct to major care lapses (unreported wounds), inadequate medical oversight, poor food and dietary management, cleanliness and odor problems, outdated or condemned equipment, and transportation deficiencies. The overall pattern is one of inconsistency: strong, caring individuals and departments exist alongside systemic operational, clinical, and administrative concerns. For families or stakeholders evaluating this facility, these reviews suggest the value of direct, specific inquiries into wound care and incident reporting, physician visitation and communication policies, staff-to-resident ratios, dietary management for conditions like diabetes, facility maintenance and infection-control practices, and accessibility/condition of transport vehicles. The mixed nature of feedback indicates that experiences can vary widely depending on timing, unit, or staff on duty, so a thorough, up-to-date assessment and direct conversations with administration and frontline staff are warranted.
