Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. A substantial number of reviewers praise individual caregivers, nurses, CNAs, and the rehabilitation team, describing them as compassionate, attentive, and skilled. Several families explicitly credit the rehab/PT/OT staff with good outcomes and note clean, welcoming rehabilitation-side spaces, a pleasant garden and common areas, and helpful front desk and admissions staff. Positive reports often mention specific staff by name (for example, Carline Gabert, Shawna, nurse Laura) and highlight strong social services, successful transition-home planning, and enjoyable activities such as holiday events and pet visits. For many residents and families, the facility comes across as a clean, safe, and supportive environment with good therapy services and genuinely caring frontline staff.
However, an equally large and serious body of reviews reports systemic problems that substantially undermine care quality. Understaffing and high turnover are recurrent themes: reviewers describe scenarios such as one nurse responsible for dozens of patients, aides spread thin, sleeping aides, delayed buzzer responses, and staff too overstretched to complete basic tasks in a timely manner. These staffing problems are linked to neglectful incidents, including delayed or missing assistance with toileting and hygiene, residents left in the same clothes, inadequate showering frequency, and reports of residents kept in wheelchairs all day. Several reviews describe extreme failures in clinical care: medication and insulin errors, poorly managed pain (including a report of a resident left in pain for many hours), unsafe discharges, and hospital readmissions within 24 hours. There are multiple accounts alleging that corporate priorities or financial considerations have been placed ahead of patient safety and quality of care.
Dining and nutrition are prominent areas of dissatisfaction. Many reviewers describe poor quality food (repeated PB&J offerings, high-starch meals, small portions, repetitive chicken salad sandwiches) and specific diet-management errors (a diabetic dietary mistake where strawberries were swapped for cake). At the same time, a minority of families praise certain kitchen staff and say meals were adequate or good. This variability underscores the inconsistent execution of dietary services across shifts and residents. The facility has also been cited for regulatory deficiencies and fines related to nutrition and dietary services, infection control, environmental cleanliness, and care planning — formal indicators that some of the negative reports reflect systemic issues rather than isolated perceptions.
Facility environment feedback is mixed: many reviewers describe clean, attractive, and hotel-like areas with a pleasant smell, updated kitchens, and sunny common spaces. Conversely, other reviewers report dark or prison-like sections, urine odors, outdated or gross rooms on long-term floors, broken elevators, and safety/maintenance concerns. Several families explicitly connect a perceived decline in quality to ownership and name changes (references to Genesis and renaming between Sutton Hill and Andover Forest), suggesting that management transitions may have coincided with lapses in operations, maintenance, or staffing.
Communication and management practices receive heavy criticism from multiple reviewers. Common complaints include slow or unhelpful administrative responses, rude or dismissive staff, poor phone connectivity, and inadequate post-incident communication — for example, delayed death certificate processing and lack of condolence or follow-up calls after adverse events. Conversely, some families highlight strong, communicative social services teams and administrators who eased transitions and planning. This split indicates that the resident and family experience is highly dependent on which department, shift, or individual caregiver they encounter.
Safety, infection control, and regulatory themes raise significant concern. Reviews mention fines and documented deficiencies for infection control, environmental problems, and care planning; combined with anecdotes of unsafe discharges, improper pain management during end-of-life care, and clinical errors, these raise red flags about systemic compliance and oversight. Several reviewers explicitly called out perceived profit-driven decisions by corporate ownership and noted negative impacts on staff morale — reports that staff are treated poorly, underpaid, or overworked, which likely contributes to the inconsistent care and high turnover.
In summary, the facility appears to deliver very good care at times — particularly in rehabilitation services and on certain floors or shifts where dedicated staff maintain high standards — but also shows repeated, serious weaknesses tied to staffing, management, and administration. Families considering this facility should weigh the likelihood of encountering both excellent, compassionate caregivers and significant operational problems. Recommended actions for prospective families include: asking specifically about current staffing ratios, turnover rates, and recent regulatory citations; meeting the rehab and nursing staff who will provide care; confirming dietary and medication management protocols; and seeking references from recent families who had stays during the same time frame as their prospective admission. Where possible, direct observation during multiple times of day and conversations with frontline staff and the director of nursing can help gauge whether the unit or shift that would serve their loved one is among the ones receiving positive or negative reports.
