The reviews for this Genesis Healthcare location are highly polarized, with a substantial number of very positive accounts describing excellent rehabilitation, caring staff, and a clean, pleasant environment, and an equally significant set of severe negative reports alleging neglect, dangerous hygiene problems, and medical errors. A major positive theme is the strength of the facility’s therapy and rehabilitation services: multiple reviewers praise PT and OT teams for helping residents regain mobility and self-care, describing therapists as patient, creative, and collaborative. Several reviews explicitly credit therapy staff with substantive functional improvements and cite successful discharge home as an outcome. In addition, many families single out individual staff members (nurses, aides, front desk personnel) as compassionate, attentive, and willing to go the extra mile. Frequently mentioned positive operational aspects include friendly admissions and reception staff, an engaged activities department, supportive social workers/coordinators, and — in many accounts — a clean, bright, and peaceful facility environment.
Contrasting sharply with those positives are recurring and serious safety and hygiene concerns in a large portion of reviews. Numerous accounts describe extremely poor cleanliness — persistent urine odor, fecal matter left on residents or in rooms for hours, bugs, sticky floors, dirty vents, stained linens, and other sanitation failures. These hygiene issues are frequently linked to neglectful practices: long delays or nonresponses to call bells, unemptied commodes, lack of basic supplies (toilet paper, blankets), and staff standing by while residents struggled. Several reviewers recount clinical consequences including untreated or ignored infections (UTIs, C-diff), bedsores, dehydration, dangerously low blood pressure, and even internal bleeding — with multiple reports of ambulance transports and hospitalizations attributed to alleged neglect. A subset of reviews goes further, saying staff behavior was aggressive or dismissive when families advocated, or that nurses laughed at residents, and some reviewers assert the facility should be shut down.
Staffing, communication, and consistency emerge as central pattern issues. Many families report mixed experiences with aides and nursing staff: while some aides and nurses are singled out as excellent, others are described as rude, inattentive, or incompetent. Call bell responsiveness, medication timeliness, and appropriate clinical follow-up are inconsistent across reviews. Communication problems are commonly reported — families saying medical staff did not relay information to them or to home-care providers, poor coordination during a COVID outbreak, and no clear handoff at discharge. Equipment and amenity failures (broken TVs and phones), lost personal items, and inconsistent therapy scheduling further amplify perceptions of chaotic or understaffed management.
Dining and facility maintenance also show a split pattern: several reviewers compliment appealing meals and describe food as delicious, while many more complain about poor-quality, cold, or repetitive meals (beans, hotdogs, crackers unavailable). Facility condition descriptions vary from “very clean” and “beautiful” to “old, dirty, deplorable,” indicating uneven maintenance or variability by unit or time period. Activities and social programming receive largely positive feedback; reviewers commonly note a lively activities team that engages residents and contributes to a family-like atmosphere.
Taken together, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with pockets of excellent care — particularly in therapy and among specific compassionate staff — but with systemic and recurring problems that pose safety risks for some residents. The most serious and frequent concerns are hygiene failures, delayed or negligent clinical care, inconsistent staff competence and responsiveness, and poor communication. These negative themes are not isolated: multiple reviewers attribute hospitalizations and significant clinical deterioration to facility practices. At the same time, the presence of repeatedly praised individuals and teams suggests that outcomes vary substantially depending on assignment, shift, or unit leadership.
For prospective residents and families, the pattern implies the need for close oversight and clear expectations: confirm staffing levels, observe cleanliness and infection-control practices, ask for specific rehabilitation goals and scheduling, verify medication management procedures, and request names of consistent caregivers when possible. For operators and management, the reviews indicate priorities for corrective action: strengthen basic hygiene and sanitation protocols, improve call response and clinical monitoring, standardize communication and discharge practices, address staffing and training deficits (particularly for aides), and ensure food service quality and facility maintenance are consistently upheld. Without addressing these systemic issues, the facility will likely continue to produce the bifurcated experiences reflected in these reviews — excellent care in some cases, and severe neglect and safety incidents in others.
