Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans toward significant concern. While a portion of reviewers praise specific caregivers and report that residents receive good or excellent care, a larger set of reviews highlights persistent and serious problems with cleanliness, staffing, safety, and communication. The coexistence of strong positive experiences with repeated negative reports indicates inconsistent quality of care and facility management.
Care quality and resident safety are central and conflicted themes. Positive comments emphasize caring staff members who help residents and families with paperwork and provide attentive care. However, many reviews report neglect, lack of empathy, and outright unsafe situations: patients spitting and falling in hallways, worsening UTIs and infections, and a few reports of verbal abuse (specifically naming a nurse, Michele). These safety and infection-control concerns are severe because they affect residents' health directly and repeatedly appear across reviews.
Staffing and staff behavior appear to be uneven and strained. Several reviewers describe mixed staff quality—some staff are caring and helpful, others are described as 'bad apples.' Many comments point to chronic understaffing or overwhelmed staff who cannot meet resident needs, with statements like 'never enough staff' and employees being rushed. There are also impressions that management may be prioritizing filling beds quickly over maintaining consistent care standards. Poor communication between staff and families/residents is another repeated issue that compounds frustration and uncertainty about resident care.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance are frequent and alarming concerns. Multiple reviewers report strong urine odors, unclean rooms, dirty bathrooms, and even feces found in bathrooms. Bed bugs were specifically reported in the Maplewood building, and one reviewer characterized the place as a 'dump.' These issues contribute to perceptions of an unsafe, unhygienic environment and raise red flags about infection control practices, especially given mentions of worsening UTIs and other infections.
Dining and nutritional services were commonly criticized. Reviews mention poor meals, diet errors, and food quality described as 'college dorm cooking.' These comments include specific worries about diet mistakes for residents who may have dietary restrictions, which relates back to safety and care quality. Some reviewers also referenced lingering COVID-19 aftereffects, which may have affected staffing, operations, or resident health in ways noted by families.
Communication and management patterns emerge as a distinct area of concern. Many reviews cite poor communication from the facility to families and residents, which heightens dissatisfaction when other problems (cleanliness, staffing, clinical issues) arise. The reports of lost clothing, diet mistakes, and rushed admission practices suggest operational weaknesses in organization, record-keeping, and oversight. At the same time, a minority of reviewers praise specific staff members and overall care, indicating that strengths exist but are inconsistently applied across shifts or units.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility with notable strengths in individual caregivers who provide compassionate help for some residents, but with systemic problems—especially around cleanliness, infection control, staffing levels, staff consistency, meal quality, and communication—that frequently undermine resident safety and family trust. The most urgent patterns are repeated reports of unclean conditions (urine smell, feces, bed bugs), reports of neglect and safety incidents (falls, worsening infections), and chronic understaffing or overwhelmed staff. These recurring issues suggest the need for sustained management attention to staffing practices, infection-control and housekeeping protocols, staff training and oversight, and improved communication with families to address inconsistent experiences among residents.
