Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans strongly negative, with numerous and recurring allegations of serious staffing, safety, hygiene, and management failures contrasted against isolated pockets of competent and compassionate care. Many reviewers report systemic understaffing that directly impacts daily care: accounts include a single CNA covering large portions of the building, long unattended periods (residents left for hours, some up to 16 hours), call bells out of range, and extensive delays in assistance for toileting, repositioning, and personal care. These staffing shortages are repeatedly linked to downstream harms such as bedsores, untreated infections, delayed medication administration, and at least one ER visit attributed to medication unavailability or delay. Several reviewers reported serious clinical consequences — elevated blood sugar, high blood pressure, significant pain, leakage after hip replacement, tracheostomy care issues, and even resident deaths — which families attribute to medical neglect or poor nursing oversight.
Staff behavior and professionalism emerge as a major theme. Multiple reviews describe rude, defensive, or uncaring interactions with nurses, aides, and management, including instances of hanging up on callers, refusing refunds, refusing callbacks, and making dismissive or hostile comments to family members. Conversely, other reviews praise specific floor staff and leadership for strong teamwork, warmth, and responsiveness; these positive comments suggest uneven performance with some units/staff performing well while others fail to meet basic standards. There are also reports that the administrator and DON were passionate and responsive in some cases, indicating variability at managerial and unit levels.
Facility condition and environment are frequently criticized. Reviewers describe an old, institutional building with cleanliness issues: urine smell, holes in walls, broken blinds, depressing rooms, and overall aging infrastructure. Several reports call the building unsafe and in need of shutdown or major remediation. Dining service repeatedly appears problematic in negative reviews: delayed or insufficient meals (kitchen closures on certain nights like Friday/Saturday), single-person tray assembly, cold and unappetizing food, and residents waiting hours for meals. That said, other reviewers say the facility was clean, the food was good, and the dining area pleasant — again underscoring inconsistency across time/shifts/units.
Safety and care processes raise serious concerns. Reviews mention incorrect assignment sheets, unsafe patient-handling practices (staff using one-person lifts despite two-person designations), and alleged lack of proper PPE or infection-control measures. Several reviewers allege COVID concealment and note outbreaks tied to staff, restricted visitation, and inadequate communication about infections or resident deaths. There are also reports of mishandled or missing personal belongings (sloppily packed suitcases, trash found in residents' items, missing items), and families report poor handling and poor empathy following resident deaths (no condolence from administration in some accounts).
Communication and administrative responsiveness are recurring weaknesses. Families note poor communication about care issues, lack of callbacks, defensive or unprofessional interactions with management, and in one case a refusal to issue a refund of nearly $2,000. Some reviewers explicitly describe being put on hold, receiving curt responses from nurses or managers, or being given conflicting information about staffing and assignments. Conversely, other families describe administrators who were accommodating and staff who valued family involvement, which again indicates highly variable management performance.
In sum, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with significant variability in quality. Core problems reported by multiple reviewers are severe understaffing, inconsistent and sometimes unsafe clinical care, poor hygiene and building maintenance, substandard dining practices at times, and problematic administrative communication and responsiveness. Offsetting these negatives are credible reports of compassionate, skilled, and team-oriented staff on certain floors, a few strong leaders (administrator/DON), and instances of good food and a homelike atmosphere. The pattern suggests that outcomes and experiences at this facility may depend heavily on specific units, shifts, or staff members: families considering this facility should weigh the risk of systemic staffing and safety issues against the possibility of excellent care in pockets of the building. The most urgent and recurrent concerns from reviewers are medical neglect, understaffing, unsafe patient handling, and management communication — issues that, if accurate and widespread, represent serious risks to resident safety and well-being.
