Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed and polarized: some families report excellent care, clean and attractive living spaces, and attentive staff, while others report serious neglect, safety issues, and management failures. Positive comments emphasize the physical environment (nice, large rooms; attractive living room/common areas), the quality of food (described as "real" and delicious by multiple reviewers), and specific staff members who are described as caring, trustworthy, and responsive. Several reviewers highlight good dementia care, regular grooming services (weekly hair appointments), quick alarm responses, and individualized attention for some residents. A handful of reviews go so far as to call out outstanding staff-to-resident ratios and well-trained teams in certain shifts or periods.
Contrasting those positive reports are numerous, specific, and significant complaints that point to inconsistent operations and quality control. A recurring theme is high staff turnover and variability in training/competence, which many reviewers tie to uneven care: some shifts and caregivers are excellent, while others provide poor or even neglectful care. Serious clinical concerns appear in multiple summaries — inability to distribute liquid medications such as morphine, inadequate medication management, reports of dehydration, and rapid development of bed sores after admission. Families report having to arrange outside medical providers themselves and, in at least one account, involving the state ombudsman. These are not minor complaints but indicate systemic lapses in clinical oversight according to reviewers.
Facility maintenance and safety also show a split pattern. While some reviews praise a clean, well-kept environment, others describe dust accumulating for months (aggravating lung problems), broken glass in a shower, fungal infections, and an absence of a dedicated cleaning staff. There are safety and security concerns beyond cleanliness: reviewers mention unsafe front-door access, narrow hallways and limited common spaces, and few staff at night — all factors that undermine a sense of security for residents and families. Personal belongings being damaged, glued back together, or missing (dentures, shaver, clothing, phone) are repeatedly cited and point to poor property protection and staff handling protocols.
Activities, rehabilitation, and engagement are another area of divergence. Several reviewers say there are limited activities and no observable rehab services, contributing to residents feeling miserable and unengaged. Conversely, some families describe residents as happy, well-groomed, and receiving regular hair appointments and family communication. Management and administration receive consistent criticism in the negative reviews: "worst management," inconsistent leadership, and a facility that "is not the same as before"—complaints that align with the high staff turnover and differing care experiences. Pricing is noted as expensive, which amplifies dissatisfaction where expectations for consistent, high-quality care are not met.
In summary, the pattern emerging from these reviews is one of significant variability. Strengths include a generally attractive physical environment, good dining in many cases, and examples of dedicated, caring staff members who provide excellent, safety-conscious care. Weaknesses are systemic: inconsistent staffing and training, lapses in clinical care and medication administration, maintenance and cleanliness failures in some units, security and property-protection issues, limited activities and rehab, and managerial instability. Prospective families should be aware that their experience may depend heavily on current management and staffing levels; the facility has demonstrable positives but also several red-flag complaints that suggest close oversight and specific questions for administrators are warranted before admission.
