Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized: several reviewers praise individual staff, therapy programs, and specific administrative staff (notably a social worker named Amber), while a significant portion report serious safety, care-quality, and management concerns. Positive accounts highlight compassionate employees, competent home health integration, effective physical and occupational therapy, and responsive casework—attributes families look for in post-acute and long-term care. However, the negative reports are frequent and severe enough to form a clear pattern of systemic issues that materially affect resident safety and family trust.
Care quality and resident safety emerge as a central concern. Multiple reviews report chronic understaffing that leads to rushed aides, inadequate supervision, and a higher incidence of falls—some with serious injuries (broken arm, broken back). There are repeated allegations that aides are not following state transfer and lift guidelines, which coupled with staffing shortages increases risk for both residents and staff. Several reviewers describe medication management problems: medication delays, meds not provided at discharge, and staff not contacting physicians for urgent medication needs. There is at least one report of a denied medical appointment due to insurance issues and a separate account where slow escalation and delayed doctor visits were implicated in a poor outcome (patient death). These patterns suggest gaps in clinical escalation protocols and discharge/medication processes.
Staffing, morale, and interpersonal behavior are recurring themes. Many complaints point to understaffing and high turnover; reviewers describe aides as rushed and unable to build caring relationships with residents. Alongside numerous accounts of kind and professional caregivers, there are distinct reports of disrespectful or even threatening behavior toward residents and family members, exclusion of family from care discussions or the room, and one explicit allegation of elder abuse. Several family members noted that management or staff appeared defensive or coached when facing an investigator, which raises concerns about transparency and accountability.
Management, communication, and coordination receive mixed marks. Positive reviews single out strong casework and care coordination—especially a social worker praised by multiple families—and some accounts praise advocacy for VA benefits and regular notifications. Contrastingly, other reviews describe poor communication with external providers and insurers, slow escalation of worsening conditions, and inadequate coordination among nurses, therapists, and social work. One review alleges management actively coached staff responses during an investigator interview, and another notes staff were uncooperative and unwilling to help with basic needs—both red flags for organizational culture.
Facility condition, privacy, and personal effects are additional areas of concern. There are reports of bed bug infestations and other cleanliness/pest issues, and several reviewers report missing clothing, blankets, or other belongings. Privacy concerns were raised: staff photographed private information and asked to see medications, producing fear about misuse of personal data. One reviewer described the physical environment as a "low-quality shack," indicating that facility upkeep and infection control may be inconsistent.
Therapy, home health, and specific staff strengths stand out as clear positives amid the criticisms. Multiple reviewers praised physical and occupational therapy programs and described home health staff as helpful and integrated into care. Several families singled out particular staff members who were compassionate, professional, and effective—evidence that there are capable employees and programs that meet or exceed expectations. Some reviewers also described the facility as a great place to work, suggesting pockets of positive culture or leadership in certain units or shifts.
Notable patterns and implications: the dominant negative threads—understaffing, falls and injuries, medication and discharge errors, privacy violations, pest issues, and occasional abusive or disrespectful behavior—collectively indicate systemic vulnerabilities rather than isolated incidents. At the same time, consistent praise for specific therapists, home health coordination, and social work indicates variability in performance by department or staff. Prospective residents and families should treat these reviews as a mixed signal: the facility appears capable of providing excellent therapy and compassionate care when staffed and managed well, but there are recurring, serious safety and management issues that warrant direct inquiry.
Given the frequency and severity of the concerns, important follow-up items for decision-makers would include verifying current staffing ratios and turnover rates, reviewing recent state inspection/deficiency reports and incident logs (falls, medication errors, pest control), asking about transfer and lift training/compliance, confirming medication reconciliation and discharge processes, and requesting details about privacy/data handling policies. Also ask for references from recent families whose experiences were positive, and tour the physical environment for cleanliness and pest signs. The mixed reviews suggest that while there are strong individual caregivers and therapy programs, systemic issues around staffing, safety, management transparency, and facility maintenance require careful vetting before choosing this provider.
