Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans toward serious concern because several reviewers describe significant safety, hygiene, and administrative problems even while others praise individual staff members and certain facility features. Positive comments consistently highlight a comfortable, home-like physical environment — private rooms that can be personalized, pleasant communal spaces (living room with sofas and TV, dining room), an outdoor patio with picnic tables, and on-site physical therapy. Multiple reviewers also mentioned good food and a cafeteria, friendly interactions, and at least some nurses and CNAs who were attentive, kind, and creative in meeting residents' needs. For some families the combination of compassionate staff and the residential, quiet setting made them feel they had made a good choice.
However, the positive impressions are offset by several recurring and serious negative themes. Safety and neglect issues are the most alarming: reviewers reported residents being left unattended after falls or in bathrooms (one report cited 20 minutes), call lights going unanswered, and a resident left without checks for up to six hours. Specific unsafe practices were reported, such as a recliner being used effectively as a restraint and vital items (call light and oxygen) being placed across the room, which could impede timely assistance. There were also accounts of staff entering rooms without knocking or without wearing proper uniforms, which raises concerns about privacy and professionalism.
Care quality and consistency appear highly variable. While some staff were singled out as caring and compassionate, others were accused of neglect, medication errors, poor clinical care, and a general lack of responsiveness. Housekeeping and hygiene lapses were reported, including soiled or wet beds and filthy furniture; one reviewer described food being placed in a window seal, indicating lapses in food handling and cleanliness. Several reviewers tied these quality issues to understaffing, and multiple accounts described poor phone responsiveness and families feeling excluded from care decisions.
Administrative and transparency concerns are another common thread. Reviewers reported difficulty obtaining state records and resident rights information, alleged unresponsiveness from management (including one account that the owner hung up on a caller), and a perception that complaints were ignored. Some reviewers felt management responded defensively to criticism rather than addressing problems. Cost was also mentioned: at more than $300/day for some residents, families expressed that the price did not match the level of care they observed.
Taken together, the pattern is one of contrasts: a facility with attractive, homey amenities and some genuinely caring staff, but also with multiple reports of serious failures in safety, hygiene, staffing, medication management, and administration. That inconsistency is important — positive individual experiences coexist with reports of neglect and unsafe practices. For prospective residents or families considering this facility, the reviews suggest it is particularly important to verify up-to-date staffing levels, fall-prevention and restraint policies, call-light response times, medication administration procedures, housekeeping standards, and how the facility handles complaints and transparency about state records. Visiting multiple times, speaking directly with nursing leadership about specific concerns, and asking for documentation of inspections or incident follow-ups would help clarify whether the positive elements or the concerning patterns are more likely to reflect current operations.
