Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed, with a clear pattern: individual staff members—particularly several CNAs, nurses, therapists, and social workers—receive strong, specific praise, while systemic issues related to staffing, management, and facility upkeep generate serious and recurring concerns. Many reviewers name specific employees (Pedro, Salish, Chad, Brittany, Lauren, Darlene, Deborah Watson, Frank) and recount compassionate, attentive care that led to successful rehabilitation or made difficult stays more tolerable. Positive items most frequently cited include effective PT/OT, emotionally supportive CNAs and nurses, helpful admissions/finance and social work assistance, and isolated instances of good dining. For some families the facility delivered on rehabilitation goals and restored mobility and confidence.
However, the positive individual experiences are contrasted by multiple reports of ongoing operational failures. Staffing shortages and overworked employees are recurring themes; reviewers report long delays responding to call bells, missed medications or delayed doses, and staff too busy to complete routine care tasks. These staffing problems appear to have direct clinical consequences in several reviews, including missed showers, missed meds, wound/pressure sore neglect, dehydration indicators (brown urine), and at least one account of a patient’s death shortly after release. Medication safety emerges as a distinct and alarming pattern: reviewers mention medication errors, medications not given on time, and even an insulin/overdose incident. These are serious safety signals that multiple reviewers highlighted.
Facility condition and hygiene likewise produce mixed reactions but trend negative. The building is described as older but pleasant by some, yet many reviewers call out cleanliness issues: dirty linens, smells, poor housekeeping practices (examples cited include using an icebox or cups as scoops), and a stated need for deep cleaning and updates. Room maintenance problems are common in the summaries—broken phones and TVs, unrepaired beds and room amenities, missing personal items (watch, bathrobe), and problems with mattresses and bed repair or provision (air mattress discussed on the day of a critical decline). Reviewers see these as symptomatic of larger management and resource-allocation problems.
Dining and nutrition receive mixed but mostly critical feedback. While a few reviews praise specific dishes (fish) and note that a nutritionist was helpful in tailoring formulas, many others report cold meals, poor food quality, inconsistent meal service, and lack of available drinks. These issues are often mentioned alongside staffing problems, implying that food-service failures may be tied to workload or staffing patterns.
Management, administration, and culture are recurring concerns. Reviews allege poor management, low staff morale, underpayment of nurses, refusal or inability to adequately staff (and comments that staffing agencies aren’t being paid), and regulators being involved in some complaints. Several reviewers describe poor teamwork, unprofessional behavior, unanswered phones, and a sense that the facility does not deliver on marketing promises. Where management and admissions/financial staff are praised, it is usually for individual interactions rather than systemic competence; conversely, poor management is linked in reviews to many of the negative care and safety outcomes described.
Safety and severe adverse events are a notable pattern. Multiple summaries include allegations of neglect (dirty diapers, dehydration), unreported wounds or bedsores, and at least one report that associates inadequate care with a rapid decline or death. These reports, combined with medication errors and missed basic care, indicate that potential residents with high medical needs or fragile clinical status could be at risk if the staffing or supervisory problems recur. At the same time, some reviewers explicitly recommend the facility based on excellent care received, which underscores the inconsistency: experiences appear to vary widely depending on the unit, shift, or specific staff members involved.
In conclusion, the reviews paint a facility with committed and compassionate individuals who often provide excellent, rehabilitative, and humane care—but within a system that appears strained, inconsistently managed, and at times unsafe. Prospective residents and families should weigh the likelihood of encountering both the praised staff and the documented operational gaps. If considering this facility, ask specific questions about current staffing levels, medication safety protocols, wound-care procedures, cleaning practices, and how broken-room repairs and missing personal items are handled. Visiting during different shifts and requesting recent inspection or incident records would help assess whether the cited systemic issues have been addressed or remain ongoing.
