Overall sentiment across the collected reviews is highly polarized, with a distinct split between reviewers who describe strong clinical and rehabilitative care and those who report serious, systemic failures in safety, cleanliness, and basic caregiving. Positive accounts consistently highlight an excellent therapy team, several compassionate nurses, certain administrators and social workers who advocate effectively for residents, and a number of facility features such as comfortable rooms, accessible showers, a pleasant outdoor area, and engaging activities. Conversely, many reviews allege grave deficiencies: neglect, infection risk, infestations, and unsafe supervision are recurring themes.
Care quality and clinical concerns form one of the strongest negative patterns. Multiple reviewers describe neglectful care resulting in dehydration, malnutrition, bruising, skin tears, and delayed or inconsistent medication administration. There are specific reports of improper wound care and bandaging that increased infection risk, non-functional oxygen equipment, and long response times to call lights. Some reviewers allege that residents were left with COVID-positive roommates, with at least one review claiming that a family member contracted COVID and died afterward. Several reports also point to staffing gaps (notably on weekends), poor oversight, and a lack of consistent clinical protocols — all of which reviewers link to adverse outcomes and hospital transfers.
Staff behavior and communication is another area of sharp contrast. Numerous testimonials praise individual nurses, therapists, and a few administrators for professionalism, kindness, and advocacy (one social worker was named positively). At the same time, many other reviews accuse staff of rudeness, unprofessional or abusive conduct, threats toward residents, gaslighting family members, and even involving police over disputes. Communication failures extend to mismanaged transportation and missed doctor appointments, confusion about scheduling, and staff accusing callers of lying. This variability suggests inconsistency across shifts and personnel: some staff are described as going above and beyond, while others are accused of apathy or neglect.
Facility cleanliness, pest control, and infection prevention concerns are frequent and specific. Reviews report urine and feces odors, unkempt residents, mice droppings found in bags, bed bugs, and black mold in furniture/dressers — all serious red flags for a care environment. Some reviewers describe the facility as filthy and offensive, while others describe certain areas (for example, the front entry and outdoor spaces) as clean and well-maintained. The coexistence of both positive and negative cleanliness reports again points to uneven conditions across the building or over time.
Dining, activities, and resident life also receive mixed feedback. Several reviewers praise well-balanced meals, 24/7 snack availability, field trips, and engaging entertainment — elements that support quality of life. However, other accounts criticize the food as disgusting and note that some staff lack pride in food service. Activities and therapy appear to be strengths for many families, especially when therapists are described as kind, knowledgeable, and cohesive.
Management, oversight, and systemic issues appear in multiple reviews. Positive mentions of a professional administrator and helpful staff are tempered by serious allegations: financial exploitation (money taken), loss or misappropriation of possessions, denial of voting rights, and reports of substantiated complaints to regulatory agencies. Several reviewers urge caution, describing the facility as expensive with poor value. There are also mentions of the state being slow to act despite substantiated complaints, which indicates possible regulatory and systemic challenges beyond individual staff behavior.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility with notable strengths — particularly a talented therapy team, several compassionate clinical staff, some clean and pleasant spaces, and meaningful activities — but also with serious, recurring safety, cleanliness, and management problems reported by multiple families. The most consequential and repeatedly cited issues include infection risks, pest infestations, neglect leading to physical harm, inconsistent medication and equipment reliability, rude or abusive staff interactions, and alleged financial misconduct. Because of the stark variability in experiences, prospective residents and families should perform thorough, up-to-date due diligence: review recent inspection and complaint records, ask directly about pest control and infection-prevention protocols, verify staffing patterns (including weekend coverage), observe cleanliness in person during multiple times of day, clarify medication and equipment maintenance procedures, and establish financial safeguards. The mixed nature of reviews means some residents may have good outcomes, particularly in therapy and with certain caregivers, but the frequency and severity of negative reports suggest clear risks that deserve careful, proactive evaluation before choosing this facility.
