Overall sentiment from these reviews is highly mixed but leans strongly negative due to repeated and serious allegations about safety, sanitation, and clinical care. A large proportion of reviewers describe conditions and care practices that they consider unsafe or neglectful: dirty rooms and common areas, foul odors (urine/food), pests (rodent droppings, ants), soiled linens and diapers left in hallways, and overall poor housekeeping. Multiple accounts describe missing or stolen personal items (wallets, IDs, clothing), repeated laundry failures, and clothing returned soiled or not returned at all. These problems create recurring themes of hygiene risks, dignity violations, and family distrust.
Clinical care and staffing are another major area of concern. Reviews report significant understaffing, particularly on weekends and holidays, with claims that only medication-dispensing personnel or minimal staff are present when professional clinical staff are needed. Families detail delays and failures in medication administration, medication charting errors (including medications deleted from the system), and unsafe feeding or dietary lapses (for example, feeding food to NPO patients or ignoring allergy/diet restrictions). There are multiple allegations of neglect: residents left in soiled bedding, long waits for assistance to the bathroom, call lights ignored, lack of turning leading to bedsores, and poor monitoring after falls. Some reviewers described outcomes as life-threatening, including a reported death and other serious medical incidents that families attributed to neglect.
Communication, management, and administrative practices are frequently criticized. Several accounts describe poor leadership, inconsistent or non-existent shift communication, dismissive or confrontational managerial responses, and failures to notify families after incidents (falls, injuries). There are also reports of billing and vendor issues (bounced checks, refund disputes), claims of misrepresentation on the facility website, and concerns about credibility when staff or administrators attempt to paint a more positive public picture (posters advertising 5-star quality versus on-the-ground experience). Some reviewers escalated issues to police, ombudsmen, or cited negative press and potential legal action.
Despite the many negative reports, there is a consistent counter-narrative from other families and some staff members who describe genuinely compassionate care experiences. Multiple reviews praise individual caregivers, CNAs, nurses, therapists, and named administrators (for example Odette Martin, Julie, Michelle, Monica, Justice, Britney, Irene, Yvette, Kim) for being attentive, professional, or uplifting. The therapy/rehab department receives recurring positive feedback for helping with stroke recovery and mobility, and some families reported meaningful functional improvements and well-coordinated therapy visits. The activities department is frequently recognized for offering engaging, creative programming (holiday events, social activities, virtual events during COVID, therapy animal visits, coffee bar), and some residents are described as happy, social, and supported by staff.
Facility condition and aesthetics are described inconsistently. Several reviewers say parts of the building are outdated, run-down, or in urgent need of repair (peeling wallpaper, stains, flooding), while other reports note recent renovations, remodeled areas, and a cleaner, better-maintained appearance in some wings. Food service opinions also split: many families report poor food quality, inappropriate meals for residents with chewing or dietary needs, and hygienic issues in the kitchen, whereas a smaller set of reviews mention satisfactory meals, snacks for visitors, and accommodating dining staff.
A recurring theme is extreme inconsistency: care quality and resident experience often appear to depend heavily on the specific staff on duty, specific wings or rooms, or whether the facility is under newer management in a given period. Some families emphasize dramatic improvement with new leadership or remodeling, while many others insist that core problems—staffing levels, clinical competency, sanitation, and management accountability—remain unaddressed. Several reviewers explicitly advise against sending loved ones there, citing safety, theft, and neglect; others highly recommend the facility because of particular staff or therapy successes.
In summary, the reviews collectively indicate a facility with polarized performance: pockets of genuinely strong, compassionate care, therapy, and activities coexist with repeated and severe allegations of neglect, unsanitary conditions, theft, medication and clinical errors, poor leadership, and administrative failures. Anyone evaluating this facility should weigh the specific risks reported (safety lapses, hygiene, theft, medication errors) heavily, seek direct, recent verification of staffing and clinical oversight (especially on weekends/holidays), and ask for written policies and incident histories. Families who reported positive experiences frequently cited particular staff members and program details—those specifics can be helpful when doing a tour or interview—while negative reviewers repeatedly recommended involving ombudsmen or authorities when issues arose.
