Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed but leans toward serious concerns about basic resident care, safety, and management consistency. A substantial number of reviewers describe alarmingly poor responsiveness: call buttons unanswered or out of reach, response times commonly reported in the 20–50+ minute range, and instances where residents were left soiled for an hour or longer. Several accounts describe neglectful practices such as delayed diaper changes, vitals not being checked, unmanaged blood sugar, delayed medication orders, dehydration, and infections—issues that point to lapses in routine medical and personal care.
Several reviewers allege active maltreatment and misconduct. These allegations range from rough handling and bruising to suspected theft of money, clothing, and prescription drugs. Specific reports include missing clothing (for example, a t-shirt and three sweat pants), empty bottles in bathrooms, staff laughing during care, and staff distracted by personal phone use or personal conversations. Some reviewers explicitly called for regulatory attention (unannounced inspections) and indicated they had filed police reports. These serious claims, combined with reports of possible drug use and nursing license issues, create a pattern of safety and trust concerns that many families found unacceptable.
That said, the facility is not uniformly described negatively. Multiple reviewers praise individual staff members and departments: some nurses and caregivers are called compassionate, loving, and top-notch. Therapy services receive strong positive mentions, with specific therapists (Darryl and Robbie) credited for effective rehabilitation that led to improved mobility and independence for patients. Several reviewers were pleased with activity programming (UNO, holiday parties, nail painting), found the dining food to be pretty good, and reported that the building can be clean and attractive. There are accounts of family-inclusive communication and transparency from staff in certain cases, and a minority of reviewers highly recommend the facility and felt comfortable choosing it for long-term care.
A recurring theme explaining the variability in care is staffing and management. Many negative reports explicitly cite short staffing, low nurse-to-patient ratios, and disengaged or unavailable leadership (DON/ADON and administration not responsive). Staff shortages are often invoked to explain delayed responses, minimal care provision, and apparent prioritization of tasks. Conversely, when staffing and leadership appear engaged, reviewers note better outcomes and more attentive care. Several reviews also allege that management may prioritize staffing or financial considerations over resident care, describing the facility as money-focused or overcharging while failing to ensure safe, consistent clinical oversight.
Facility operations and environment receive mixed feedback. Concerns include poor cleanliness in some areas, hygiene lapses (empty bottles in bathrooms), dining-room comfort issues such as no air conditioning, and inconsistent housekeeping and laundry practices resulting in missing or damaged clothing. However, other reviewers describe the environment as clean and report positive social activities and celebrations that improved resident morale.
In summary, the reviews reveal a polarized picture: pockets of high-quality, compassionate care—especially in therapy—coexist with numerous and severe complaints about neglect, safety lapses, theft, and managerial unresponsiveness. The most frequently cited and consequential problems are delayed responses to call lights, poor basic hygiene care, medication and medical management issues, allegations of abuse and theft, and inconsistent leadership and staffing. Families considering this facility should weigh reports of excellent individualized care against repeated accounts of systemic failures; the variability suggests outcomes may strongly depend on staffing levels, specific staff on duty, and management engagement during a resident's stay.
