Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed but leans toward serious concern. Several reviewers describe deeply troubling problems that indicate both environmental and operational failures (pest infestations, unsanitary conditions, equipment lapses) while others highlight pockets of genuinely caring staff and positive experiences. The presence of repeated and severe complaints—particularly about bed bugs, mice, cleanliness, and failure to maintain medical supports—creates a pattern that multiple reviewers found alarming. At the same time, a number of reviewers praised specific staff members, the DON, home-cooked meals, and reported that certain residents were kept clean and comfortable.
Care quality and resident safety: Reviews present a sharp contrast. Positive comments focus on individual caregivers and leadership (notably a supportive Director of Nursing who 'cared for residents' and inspired someone to pursue nursing), instances of good hands-on care for particular family members, and homemade meals. However, multiple reviewers raised serious safety and care concerns: bed bug and mice infestations (one review even reports bed bugs crawling on residents), oxygen support that was not maintained, residents discovered without shoes, missing bed pads, and reports that conditions posed a death risk. These latter issues point toward potential lapses in basic care, infection control, and medical equipment oversight that reviewers considered dangerous for elderly or disabled residents.
Staff and communication: Staff-related feedback is sharply polarized. Many reviewers commended female staff as responsive, quick, and caring; some families said staff kept their loved ones clean and dressed. Conversely, there are frequent reports of rude or unprofessional behavior—phone staff who hung up on callers, slow or rude male staff, annoyed or unfriendly tones, and fast-paced or poor communication that left families frustrated. Several reviewers explicitly called out unprofessional conduct by the DON and administration in some instances. This inconsistent staff performance and poor communication were frequent contributors to family dissatisfaction.
Facilities, cleanliness, and daily living: Facility-related complaints dominated many reviews. Problems included pest infestations (both mice and bed bugs), unsanitary conditions, unpleasant odors reported by some, crowded rooms, inadequate laundry service, small towels, no bed pads, and lack of basic supplies such as sanitizer. While some reviewers contradicted this—reporting no odor and a clean environment for their loved one—the recurrence of sanitation and pest complaints across multiple reviews is significant and a major negative theme.
Dining, activities, and social life: A small but meaningful positive theme is the presence of homemade meals and desserts (pudding was mentioned specifically), which some families appreciated. However, there are clear negatives regarding social programming: multiple reviewers said there were no activities or outings, which suggests limited engagement or quality-of-life programming for residents.
Management, ownership, and policies: Management and ownership were frequent targets of criticism. Reviewers described administration as unprofessional, owners as indifferent, and management as horrible or neglectful. Additional policy-related complaints included a remark about Medicaid (unspecified) and a note that volunteers were not accepted. Some reviewers felt residents were treated like inmates—language that underscores perceptions of poor institutional culture. These managerial criticisms often accompanied reports of operational problems such as neglected pest control and lack of basic supplies.
Patterns and noteworthy contrasts: The reviews demonstrate two distinct experiences: some families and residents experienced attentive, caring staff and acceptable living conditions, while multiple other reviewers reported systemic problems that could jeopardize resident safety and wellbeing. Recurring issues of pest infestation, hygiene, equipment maintenance (notably oxygen support), and poor management are the most serious and repeatedly mentioned concerns. Staffing behavior and responsiveness also appear inconsistent, with gendered differences noted by reviewers and variability between individuals and shifts.
Conclusion: The overall picture is mixed but leans toward caution. While there are genuine positives—dedicated staff members, a caring DON in some reports, and home-style meals—the prevalence of severe complaints (pest infestations, unsanitary conditions, oxygen/equipment lapses, and reports suggesting risk to life) are significant red flags. These patterns suggest the facility may have inconsistent care standards and operational oversight. Prospective families should weigh these polarized experiences, seek current verification on pest-control measures, infection-control practices, medical equipment maintenance, staffing consistency, and management responsiveness, and, if possible, speak directly with current families or conduct an in-person visit before making placement decisions.
