Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed, with a clear split between praise for frontline staff and concern about broader management and consistency. One reviewer reports a long period (about four years) of good care and describes staff as extremely kind, while another reviewer emphasizes that staff are "amazing" and that the environment is clean. At the same time, serious issues are reported after an ownership change: diminished care, dirty room conditions, and basic personal-care neglect such as clothing not being changed. The complaints also include a rate increase with no corrective action taken by management. These themes point to a facility with strong caregiving personnel but problems in oversight, consistency, and facility management after administrative changes.
Care quality: Reviews indicate a notable contrast over time. For approximately four years one reviewer experienced "good" care, suggesting that the facility was able to deliver consistent, acceptable services in the past. However, after an ownership change that same reviewer reports a measurable decline — examples cited include unclean rooms and clothing not being changed. This suggests a shift in either operational priorities, staffing levels, or oversight following the ownership transition. Care quality therefore appears variable: high and reliable historically for at least one resident, but deteriorating for others after administrative changes.
Staff: Both summaries strongly praise the direct-care staff. Phrases like "extremely kind," "staff are amazing," and "they actually care about us" make it clear that caregivers are viewed as a major strength and are perceived as compassionate and attentive by residents or their families. This is an important positive: despite management or facility issues, the frontline employees are creating a meaningful positive experience for some residents.
Facilities and cleanliness: Feedback here is inconsistent. One reviewer explicitly calls the environment "clean," while another describes a "dirty" room after ownership changed. The latter also mentions clothing not being changed, which is a specific and troubling cleanliness/personal-care lapse. Taken together, the pattern suggests uneven standards or variable execution of housekeeping and personal-care tasks — some areas or times are acceptable, while others fall short.
Management, ownership, and cost: The ownership change is a clear inflection point in the reviews; it correlates with reduced care quality and facility issues according to at least one reviewer. That same reviewer notes a rate increase but states that management took "no action" in response to problems. This raises concerns about responsiveness, resident advocacy, and value for money. Potential residents and families should consider asking about recent leadership changes, documented quality metrics, and how complaints are handled.
Dining and activities: The reviews provided do not mention dining services or activities programming. There is no information to evaluate mealtime quality, menu variety, social/recreational offerings, or engagement opportunities.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is positive regard for the caregiving staff paired with worries about inconsistency and management responsiveness after an ownership change. For people considering this community, the reviews suggest doing a few specific things: visit multiple times (including evenings/weekends) to observe cleanliness and staff-resident interactions; ask management about the ownership history, staffing levels, and turnover; request documentation on recent complaints and corrective actions; verify any rate increases and what's included; and speak with current residents and families about recent changes. In short, the facility appears to have strong, compassionate staff, but prospective residents should carefully evaluate current management practices and consistency of care before committing.
