Overall sentiment: The aggregated reviews convey a strongly negative overall impression of Mitchell Village Care Center. The dominant themes are poor daily care, staffing and management failures, and troubling facility conditions. Several reviewers use very strong language ("hell hole", "worst nursing home ever", "avoid for loved ones"), and multiple distinct complaints repeat across summaries, indicating systemic rather than isolated problems.
Care quality and resident experience: Reviews consistently describe neglectful direct care. CNAs are reported to treat residents as an inconvenience, sometimes failing to answer call lights and not following care-plan safeguards such as chair or bed alarms. Families report incomplete or delayed critical care-plan paperwork and a lack of routine care-plan meetings, which limits family involvement and oversight. Medical attention is described as minimal or almost nonexistent by some reviewers. The combined effect, according to reviewers, is that residents are "warehoused" rather than actively cared for, and families are strongly advised to avoid placing loved ones there.
Staffing, behavior, and morale: Staffing appears to be a central problem. Reviewers report chronic understaffing, CNAs openly complaining about working conditions, and staff not performing assigned duties. These staffing pressures are tied to observable neglect (missed calls, unmet toileting needs, failure to follow alarms) and poor interpersonal behavior toward residents. Several reviewers specifically call out CNA neglect and poor staff behavior as recurring issues. High staff dissatisfaction and visible negative behaviors point to broader morale and management problems affecting day-to-day resident care.
Facility conditions and supplies: Multiple summaries describe unpleasant and unsanitary facility conditions: persistent odors of human waste and soiled clothing, reports of rotting food, and general dirtiness. Practical supply shortages are also mentioned — brief/pull-up shortages and other supply runs-outs — which directly affect basic hygiene and dignity. Taken together, these accounts indicate both housekeeping failures and budget-related constraints impacting residents' living conditions.
Personal effects, security, and financial concerns: There are multiple, consistent allegations of theft by employees and disappearing gifts, plus reports that residents' belongings frequently go missing. Families also report difficulties obtaining resident accounting or documentation when requested and describe "sketchy" money management. These points raise red flags about both security and administrative transparency. One reviewer even mentions management bankruptcy, and several accuse ownership/management of prioritizing finances over resident care.
Dining, activities, and resources: While not as extensively detailed as other categories, reviewers mention budget cuts leading to subpar food. The implication is that dining quality and likely recreational resources are also affected by the facility's financial and staffing constraints. Limited food quality, combined with staffing shortages, can reduce opportunities for meaningful activities and engagement for residents.
Management, ownership, and regulatory context: Reviews portray ownership and management as problematic—described as "horrible" by some—and focused on money rather than care. At least one review references new ownership and calls out frustration with state regulations, suggesting there may be recent changes or attempts at improvement, but overall complaints remain numerous. The presence of at least one positive note about new ownership indicates a possible transition, but there is not enough consistent positive reporting to conclude that issues have been resolved.
Contrasting / positive notes: A small number of comments were positive or at least less negative: a mention of "good facility" and references to "new owners" appear among the summaries, and one reviewer explicitly notes moving their mother to a different facility where she receives loving, attentive care. These positive remarks are relatively sparse compared with the volume and severity of negative reports and often refer to post-transition experiences (i.e., improved care after moving out).
Patterns and implications: The most frequently mentioned and serious issues are neglectful care practices (missed calls, no alarms, incomplete care plans), unsanitary conditions and supply shortages, and alleged theft/missing property compounded by administrative noncompliance in producing documentation. Together these suggest systemic operational breakdowns spanning direct care, housekeeping, supply management, and administrative transparency. Although a few reviewers mention new ownership or a better experience elsewhere, the dominant pattern is one of consistent, severe concerns that would warrant close scrutiny by families, potential residents, and regulators.
Summary assessment: Based on the collected review summaries, Mitchell Village Care Center exhibits multiple critical areas of concern affecting resident safety, dignity, and wellbeing: poor direct care, staffing and morale problems, inadequate facility cleanliness and supplies, and troubling reports of theft and opaque financial/administrative practices. While there are brief, isolated notes about new ownership and at least one instance where a family found significantly better care after moving a loved one, the preponderance of negative reports suggests significant, ongoing issues that should be addressed before the facility can be considered reliably safe or suitable for most residents.
