Overall sentiment from the collected reviews is predominantly negative, with multiple reviewers describing serious and recurring problems related to cleanliness, staffing, care quality, and management practices. While a few isolated comments note helpful phone interactions and an acceptable short respite stay or pleasant appearance, the most frequent and emphatic themes are concerns about hygiene, neglect, and inadequate supervision.
Care quality and staffing emerge as central issues. Several reviewers recount instances of residents being left alone in common areas, nurses being inattentive during visits, and even descriptions of neglect or what felt like cruel treatment by staff. Understaffing is explicitly cited as a cause or contributing factor, and reviewers say that basic needs—such as pain management and timely attention—are not always met. One reviewer noted that their grandmother was in pain and that phone calls were not answered, reinforcing patterns of poor responsiveness.
Facility conditions and infection-control-related issues are another major theme. Multiple reviewers report a persistent foul odor, often described specifically as the smell of feces, and state that the environment is filthy with soiled diapers observed. Management practices compound these concerns: reviewers allege that staff or administration refused to provide essential supplies such as wipes and chux pads, and even declined to provide a full meal in at least one account. Inadequate ventilation and high indoor temperatures (one report cited about 85°F) were also mentioned, which raises further concerns about resident comfort and environmental controls.
Therapy, discharge planning, and services are noted but often described as insufficient. While the facility does provide occupational and physical therapy, reviewers explicitly say the hours are inadequate—some mentioning OT and PT being combined into a single hour per day—and that discharge planning can be premature. These reports suggest that rehabilitation and transitional-care services may not meet expected levels of intensity or coordination.
Communication, safety, and management responsiveness were additional areas of concern. Multiple comments describe phone lines going unanswered, and at least one reviewer mentioned an instance of an inappropriate visitor attempting to kiss residents—indicating lapses in supervision and security. Although one reviewer praised phone interactions as helpful and another described the place as 'very nice' for a short respite stay, these positive notes are limited and do not offset the repeated reports of neglect, sanitation problems, and operational deficiencies.
In summary, the pattern across reviews points to systemic issues: poor cleanliness and odor control, understaffing and inattentive caregiving, inadequate provision of basic supplies and meals, questionable environmental controls, limited therapy services, and communication/supervision failures. There are a few isolated positives (helpful phone staff, acceptable short respite experience, and a pleasant physical appearance claimed by one reviewer), but the dominant and recurring themes are serious enough that reviewers advise caution or avoidance. Anyone considering this facility should verify current staffing levels, cleanliness and infection-control practices, therapy schedules, meal provision policies, and visitor supervision before making placement decisions.
