Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized, with a clear pattern: individual frontline caregivers and therapy staff often receive strong praise for compassion, rehabilitation outcomes, and personal attention, while systemic issues—management, facility conditions, safety, staffing, and communication—are repeatedly criticized and in some cases described as dangerous.
Care quality and therapy: Many reviewers specifically praised the rehabilitation program and physical therapy, with multiple positive stories of recovery and helpful therapists (one named Kim is singled out for thorough explanations and support). Social services and discharge/home-care setup also received favorable comments. However, these positive care experiences coexist with numerous reports of neglect and inadequate nursing care: missed appointments, ignored wounds leading to serious medical consequences, delayed treatment of infections, and at least one report of a resident transferred to the hospital and later dying. Several reviewers described near-death or life-altering outcomes (amputation, severe infection) that they attribute to poor medical attention. The contrast suggests the facility may provide strong therapy/rehab services but inconsistent or unreliable nursing/medical oversight.
Staff behavior and staffing patterns: Reviews frequently note an inconsistent staff quality. Many individual CNAs, aides, and nurses are described as kind, attentive, and going above and beyond; those staff members appear to be responsible for much of the positive feedback. Simultaneously, there are repeated complaints about rude, unprofessional, or even alarming staff behavior—yelling, swearing around patients, mocking, and alleged appearance of substance abuse. Staffing shortages and heavy reliance on agency/temporary staff are common themes; reviewers say staff are overworked, which appears to contribute to missed tasks, delayed responses, and uneven care. Several respondents called out management for rehiring or failing to discipline problematic staff.
Safety and serious incidents: A critical pattern in the reviews is recurring concern about resident safety. Reports include falls with no staff action, lack of bed rails, a deadly window accident allegation, ignored mobility assistance, and a fall from a wheelchair. There are also mentions of theft/loss of resident property, and complaints that residents must constantly remind staff about essential care tasks. Multiple reviewers explicitly stated they filed complaints with the state health department or Ombudsman and called for the facility to be shut down, indicating extreme distrust in administrative oversight.
Facilities, cleanliness, and maintenance: Numerous reviews describe the building as old, in disrepair, and poorly maintained. Specific issues cited include urine smell, rotting wood, rats, and lack of on-site maintenance. While some reviewers reported clean floors and pride in maintenance, the volume of complaints about hygiene and pest problems is significant and raises red flags about infection control and overall livability. The physical environment is frequently described as unsafe or neglected, which compounds the clinical concerns.
Management, communication, and operations: Management and administration receive heavy criticism for dishonesty, poor oversight, and prioritizing profit. Reported consequences include delays in transfers, slow responses to complaints, and suggestions that administration covers up incidents. Communication failures show up as unanswered phone calls, poor phone etiquette, lack of transparency with families, and missed appointments. These operational problems seem to amplify the negative effects of understaffing and facility issues.
Dining and resident life: Opinions on food and atmosphere are mixed. Some reviewers praise the food and a home-like atmosphere with smiling, caring staff and lovely residents; others call the food pathetic and the overall environment worse than a prison. This split reinforces the overall theme: individual experiences depend heavily on which staff and which areas of the facility a resident encounters.
Patterns and overall impression: The dominant pattern is a facility with pockets of excellent, compassionate frontline staff—particularly in therapy—but with systemic failures that create safety risks and inconsistent care. Positive outcomes are often attributed to specific therapists or caregivers, while negative, sometimes severe incidents are linked to institutional problems: understaffing, poor maintenance, poor management, and breakdowns in communication. Because of the frequency and severity of the negative reports (falls, infections, alleged cover-ups, missing items, pest problems), reviewers frequently advise caution and recommend moving loved ones elsewhere unless families can verify current staffing, maintenance, and incident remediation.
If evaluating this facility, prospective families should weigh the clear strengths in rehabilitative therapy and the presence of caring individual staff against repeated and serious concerns about safety, hygiene, management honesty, responsiveness, and staffing stability. Verification steps before placement could include asking for recent state inspection reports, specific staffing ratios, examples of corrective actions for cited incidents, and in-person observation of cleanliness, response times, and staff demeanor. The reviews suggest that while good care is possible here, it is not consistently delivered, and the consequences of those inconsistencies can be severe.
