Overall sentiment across these reviews is mixed, with a significant number of serious concerns about direct care quality balanced by reports of genuinely caring staff and positive individual experiences. Multiple reviewers describe instances of neglect and inadequate personal care: residents reportedly left in wheelchairs in dining rooms, long waits for assistance after soiling, hair not washed, and residents left dirty for extended periods. There are specific and alarming reports of wounds not being cleaned, sores becoming raw and starting to show signs of infection, and mishandling of diabetes/sugar management. These accounts suggest inconsistent clinical monitoring and basic hygiene practices that may reflect care-process failures or staffing shortages.
Staff behavior and competence emerge as a major theme with wide variation. Several reviews praise specific nurses and staff members as caring, attentive, and helpful; families described quick adjustment and positive experiences for some residents, and administrative/office staff were noted as attentive in some cases. Conversely, other reviewers reported rude leadership (specifically a DON), lazy or uncaring staff, and staff visibly smoking outside the building. This polarization implies that resident experiences depend heavily on which staff are working and that staffing consistency or training may be inadequate.
Facility condition and cleanliness are also inconsistent. Some reviewers note that the facility looks nice upon entry and that there is no urine smell in certain areas, but there are serious complaints about the rehabilitation rooms being "disgusting," never mopped, and overall poor cleanliness in care areas. Reviewers explicitly stated that the front of the building can be misleading compared to the state of the rehab rooms, and one reviewer recommended reporting the facility to authorities. These discrepancies suggest uneven housekeeping and environmental maintenance across different parts of the campus.
Clinical services such as physical therapy were mentioned positively where available (for example, therapy sessions noted after lunch), which indicates some on-site rehabilitation programming. However, the positive impact of such services is offset by reports of poor nursing care, wound mismanagement, and diabetic care concerns, all of which can undermine rehabilitation outcomes. Several reviewers also reported traumatic transitions or relocations to other hospitals and complained about improper handling or disposal of personal belongings during moves, raising concerns about discharge/transfer processes and respect for resident property.
A recurring safety and vulnerability theme relates to residents without regular visitors. Multiple reviewers expressed worry about how those residents fare, suggesting that advocacy and oversight by family members play a role in ensuring acceptable care. This is compounded by reports of understaffing and inconsistent supervision, which could leave unvisited residents particularly at risk.
In summary, these reviews point to a facility with some dedicated, competent staff and functional clinical services for some residents, but also systemic problems: inconsistent personal care, hygiene and wound-care failures, variable cleanliness especially in rehab rooms, staffing and leadership concerns, and occasional disrespectful administrative practices. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive reports of caring staff and therapy offerings against the significant negative reports, ask detailed questions about staffing levels, wound and diabetes management protocols, housekeeping schedules, and tour multiple care areas (including rehab rooms) before admission. Families of current residents should monitor care closely, advocate actively, and consider reporting serious neglect to regulatory authorities if warranted.
