Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed, with a notable split between positive experiences describing cleanliness, caring individual staff members, and satisfied residents, and very serious negative allegations alleging neglect, abuse, theft, and systemic administrative failures. Several reviewers praise the physical environment (very clean rooms), friendly staff on particular shifts, and named caregivers—most prominently Kaylee on the afternoon/evening shift—who provided great, compassionate care that led to measurable improvement in a resident's condition. Some reviewers also reported pleasant admission experiences including tours and staff introductions and explicitly stated that residents were happy and well cared for.
Conversely, a large portion of the reviews raise multiple severe concerns about care quality and safety. Specific criticisms include lazy staff, reports that agency or temporary staff mistreat residents, diaper neglect and insufficient assistance with toileting, and failure to follow prescribed dietary restrictions (for example, a salt-free diet not being observed). Several reviews describe the food as horrible. There are multiple accusations of abusive behavior by staff and repeated references to neglect. These are not limited to interpersonal complaints but extend to alleged systemic issues—reviewers mention involvement of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, labor board actions, state investigations, and even calls by some to shut the facility down. That cluster of comments points to complaints that go beyond isolated incidents and suggest regulatory scrutiny or at least community perception of serious lapses.
Management, communication, and security issues are prominent themes in the negative feedback. Reviewers report administration being uncaring or unresponsive, difficulty contacting the director, and at least one planned police report. There are also allegations of employee theft, including the theft of bank card information and attempted purchases—claims that raise additional concerns about resident safety and oversight. Visitation complaints appear frequently: some reviews assert residents were not allowed visitors or that there were restrictive visitation practices, which can be an important indicator of transparency and family engagement problems.
Facilities and staff performance are described in conflicting terms. While several reviewers repeatedly emphasize cleanliness and positive individualized care, others describe the building as "nasty" and characterize staff as "horrible" or "laid back" in ways that imply neglect. This pattern of mixed feedback suggests inconsistent quality of care tied to shifts, specific employees, or the presence of agency staff versus regular staff. The presence of specific praise (named caregivers, a positive director in some accounts) alongside allegations of abuse and regulatory involvement indicates variability in residents' experiences rather than a uniform facility-wide standard.
In summary, the reviews paint a polarized picture: on one hand, a clean environment and certain dedicated caregivers who deliver excellent, compassionate care; on the other hand, serious allegations of neglect, mistreatment by agency staff, management failures, theft, regulatory investigations, and visitation problems. The most significant recurring concerns are resident safety (abuse/neglect claims), administrative responsiveness, and documented regulatory attention. Prospective residents and families should weigh both the positive individual accounts and the serious negative allegations; they may want to ask facility management directly about any past or ongoing investigations, staffing ratios and oversight of agency staff, incident reporting procedures, visitor policies, dietary accommodations, and security measures related to resident belongings and finances before making placement decisions.
