Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans toward a recognition that clinical and rehabilitation staff do good work despite systemic problems. Multiple reviewers specifically praise therapists, techs, nurses, CNAs, and the rehabilitation department — describing staff as kind, welcoming, attentive, and effective at delivering care. Several comments indicate that residents and family members felt heard and supported, and that the on-the-floor care provided by clinical teams was a strong point.
At the same time, there are consistent and specific operational and environmental concerns. Administrative/front-desk interactions were described as rude or unhelpful; examples include staff failing to come to the door and an instance of staff whispering about a caller on the phone. Communication and coordination of care also appear weak: reviewers reported slow care setup, the absence of an initial doctor meeting, and no care conference having been held. One review noted an inability to speak with a resident through a window, which reflects communication barriers for family visits.
Facility cleanliness and physical infrastructure emerged as important negative themes. Multiple reviewers mentioned a urine smell and general poor cleanliness, and the building itself was described as old. Additionally, lack of internet access was called out, which can affect both residents' quality of life and family communication. These facility issues compound concerns about overall living conditions and first impressions for visitors.
Staffing and workload are another major pattern in the reviews. Several comments explicitly state the facility is understaffed and does not have enough CNAs; staff appear overworked and patient care can feel rushed as a result. Importantly, reviewers often qualified these criticisms by noting that nurses and CNAs do a good job under difficult conditions — implying the clinical team is committed, but limited by staffing levels and operational constraints.
What is not mentioned in these summaries is food/dining quality, the activity or social programming, and specifics about medical outcomes beyond rehab and routine care. That absence means we cannot assess those areas from the provided feedback.
In summary, the facility receives clear praise for its hands-on clinical and rehabilitation staff who are perceived as caring and effective. However, recurring issues with front-line administration, cleanliness and building conditions, poor communication/coordination of care, lack of internet, and insufficient staffing create notable concerns. The pattern suggests a facility where direct caregivers strive to provide good care but are hampered by operational deficits; addressing cleanliness, staffing levels, administrative professionalism, and care coordination would likely produce the largest improvements in overall experience.
