Overall sentiment: The review summaries present an overwhelmingly negative view of Martin De Porres Nursing Home. Reviews contain serious safety and cleanliness complaints, direct warnings to avoid the facility, and an absence of any noted positive aspects. The dominant themes are allegations of staff misconduct, inadequate supervision leading to injuries, poor facility hygiene, and reportedly unhelpful responses from staff and management.
Safety and alleged misconduct: Multiple review items raise grave safety concerns. Reviewers specifically name a CNA (Shardae Viatoe) in connection with assault allegations and reference social media (Facebook Live) recordings related to incidents. Another named individual (Cherise Celestine) is mentioned with references to parole status and a stalking charge. Reviews report police involvement and note a pending court date. Because these points come from review summaries, they should be treated as allegations reported by reviewers rather than independently verified facts; however, their presence in multiple summaries indicates strong reputational and potential legal risks that prospective residents and families should verify through official records and authorities.
Care quality and staffing: Reviewers repeatedly describe a lack of supervision and indicate that insufficient oversight has resulted in resident injuries. Staff are characterized as unhelpful in several summaries, and there is mention of denied transfer requests — suggesting that family members’ attempts to move residents or escalate concerns were not adequately supported. The single-word reference to "wages" in the summaries suggests potential concerns about staff compensation, which can be associated with turnover or understaffing; while not detailed, this point could be related to the broader problems in care quality and supervision reported by reviewers.
Facility condition and cleanliness: Cleanliness issues are explicitly noted, with a persistent urine smell cited as a specific problem. Multiple summaries call out poor cleanliness overall. These environmental factors compound the reported safety and care problems and contribute to the strong negative impressions expressed by reviewers.
Gaps and limitations in the reviews: Reviewers did not provide information or specifics about several operational areas — there are no substantive comments about dining quality, activities programming, amenities, or many routine aspects of daily life in the facility. Additionally, several reviews explicitly state that there were "no positives mentioned," indicating either that reviewers found nothing worth praising or that their concerns were so severe they overshadowed any neutral/positive observations. Because of limited detail in some areas, it is difficult to form a complete picture of every service domain (meals, social programming, physical plant beyond cleanliness, clinical outcomes) from these summaries alone.
Management, reputation, and recommended actions: The overall tenor of the reviews is a strong advisory to avoid the facility and a call that the facility "needs change." Given the combination of alleged criminal incidents, police involvement, supervisory failures, and hygiene problems, these patterns raise significant concerns about resident safety and facility governance. Prospective residents and families should treat these reported issues seriously: verify licensing and state inspection reports, request recent staffing and incident records, ask about background checks and disciplinary actions for staff, and, if possible, perform unannounced visits to assess cleanliness and staffing levels. Families currently affected by these issues may also consider contacting local ombudsman services, state long-term care regulators, or law enforcement to ensure allegations are formally investigated and documented.
Summary assessment: In sum, the aggregated review summaries portray Martin De Porres Nursing Home in a highly negative light, emphasizing alleged staff misconduct, legal/police involvement, poor supervision with resultant resident harm, unhelpful staff responses to concerns, transfer denials, and significant cleanliness problems (including urine odor). There are no positive aspects reported in these summaries. The pattern suggests systemic problems that warrant careful independent verification before any placement decision and possible intervention by regulators or advocates if the allegations reflect current conditions.
