Overall sentiment across these reviews is mixed but leans strongly negative, with recurring and serious concerns about staffing, responsiveness, hygiene, and management. Multiple reviewers reported chronic understaffing that directly affected the timeliness and quality of care: call lights ignored for extended periods (one report cited more than 1.5 hours), long waits for assistance, and residents left alone 24/7 or wandering into other rooms. These delays and gaps in supervision created safety and dignity issues for residents, including being left in soiled clothing, being kept in pajamas unless family intervened, and reports of urine on or around seating areas.
Care quality appears inconsistent. Several reviewers praised individual employees—some aides and nurses were described as exceptional and attentive, front office staff received positive mentions, and at least one physical therapist was noted as friendly. A minority of families said their relatives were very well cared for and had many daily activities. However, these positive accounts sit alongside numerous reports of subpar care: aides perceived as overworked or absent, poor communication from nursing, dietician, and therapy staff, and an overall impression that the facility cannot reliably meet residents' needs. Reviewers also noted variability by location or floor, with the second floor described as better than the first in at least one account.
Safety and hygiene concerns are a prominent and alarming theme. Multiple reviews mention soiled residents and areas, urine on the floor, dirty or dingy rooms, used gloves left on the floor, and floors that felt sticky. These issues suggest systemic lapses in housekeeping and direct care protocols. Several families reported that staff appeared to shrug off these problems or blame the resident rather than take corrective action. There are also reports of residents yelling for help and wandering, which combined with slow or absent responses increases risk of falls, exposure, or neglect.
Facility environment and amenities drew mixed comments. The dining room was described as lovely by some and the food as tasty and well balanced in some reviews, while others called the food merely "okay" or "horrible." There is a notable absence of comfortable sit-and-talk spaces and no outdoor visiting area according to reviewers, which contributes to feelings of isolation for residents. Room layouts were described as small and odd by some, and several reviews described rooms as dark, dingy, or confined. Some families noted planned improvements such as repainting rooms, indicating at least some maintenance activity.
Activities and social engagement appear inconsistent. Some families reported many daily activities and an engaged environment, while others said residents were not offered activities, left without companionship, and effectively isolated. This inconsistency suggests programming may depend heavily on staffing levels or specific shifts/units and may not be reliably provided to all residents.
Management and leadership are frequent subjects of complaint. Reviewers repeatedly described poor responsiveness from administration, lack of follow-up on phone calls, shifting blame onto residents, and high staff turnover. Several families reported filing complaints with the Department of Public Health and not seeing improvements. These management issues are presented as underlying drivers of the day-to-day problems: staffing shortages, inadequate training or oversight, and inconsistent enforcement of cleanliness and care standards.
In summary, while there are clear, specific examples of compassionate and competent staff and some positive experiences—particularly on certain units or with individual caregivers—the dominant pattern in these reviews is one of understaffing and inconsistent care leading to delayed responses, hygiene and safety lapses, and family frustration with management. Prospective residents and families should be aware of the polarized experiences: you may encounter excellent individual caregivers and decent dining/activities in some cases, but multiple reviewers document systemic problems that have led them to file regulatory complaints and would cause many to avoid this facility for a loved one.
