Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized: many families and residents offer strong praise for the staff, rehabilitation services, and environment, while a substantial number of reviews describe serious care, cleanliness, and management failures. The recurring pattern is that the facility can provide excellent rehabilitation outcomes and warm, attentive caregiving in some units or under certain leadership, yet other reports describe conditions that family members consider unsafe and neglectful. This split suggests significant variability in experience depending on unit, shift, staffing mix, or time period.
Care quality and safety show a stark contrast across reviews. Numerous accounts praise the rehabilitation/therapy teams (PT/OT), noting successful recoveries, regained independence, and a generally strong clinical focus in the rehab wing. Many families credit nurses and CNAs with going above and beyond, attentive bedside care, and compassionate end‑of‑life services. Conversely, other reviewers report dangerous lapses: missed medications and feedings, extended periods of immobility, bedsores, and infection control breakdowns including C. difficile and sepsis. Several reviewers describe delays in physician access and inadequate nurse presence for extended intervals. These negative reports raise significant concerns about consistency of clinical oversight, medication administration, infection prevention, and the facility’s ability to protect vulnerable residents.
Staffing and workforce issues are a central theme. Positive reviews repeatedly note long‑tenured, dedicated caregivers and a team mentality; these staff are often singled out as the reason for good outcomes and a homelike atmosphere. Negative reviews, however, emphasize reliance on temporary agency staff, which families link to poorer attitudes, care gaps, and diminished competence. Weekend coverage and particular shifts are repeatedly flagged as weaker. Reports of staff arguing in front of families, dismissive or “mean” nurses, and inconsistent communication further underscore variability in staff behavior and professionalism.
Facility condition and housekeeping are another area of divided opinion. Many reviews describe a clean, odor‑free, well‑maintained older building with bright common areas, pleasant outdoor landscaping, and cozy patios — in short, an attractive, homelike setting. In contrast, other reviewers report filthy rooms, unclean bathroom facilities, urine‑soaked pads, overflowing trash, broken refrigerators with rotting food, and halls smelling of bodily fluids. Some accounts mention disrepair in bathrooms and broken heaters. These contradictions suggest uneven housekeeping standards and potentially unit‑level or time‑dependent declines in environmental services.
Management, communication, and administration elicit mixed reactions. Several families praise administrators and DONs for being helpful, communicative, and responsive; these reviewers reference smooth admissions, clear communication, and supportive leadership. Other families describe uncommunicative or dishonest administration, billing/insurance errors that depleted a resident’s funds, and advice to pursue legal action. Common operational complaints include full voicemail boxes, limited room phones, difficulty reaching staff, and failures to hold care plan meetings or follow through on promises. Such administrative inconsistencies amplify family frustration and erode trust, particularly when clinical concerns are involved.
Dining, activities, and resident life show variability. Positive mentions include personalized activities, engaged recreation staff, and events tailored to resident interests. Several reviewers praise social workers and activity directors by name. However, many reviewers are unhappy with food quality — meals described as sub‑par, cold, or unappetizing — and note reductions in activities. This indicates that while programming exists and can be meaningful, its availability and quality may fluctuate.
A clear pattern emerges that the rehabilitation unit is frequently rated higher than long‑term care units: rehab is repeatedly described as clean, effective, and staffed with committed clinicians, while long‑term units receive more of the cleanliness, staffing, and neglect complaints. Several reviews also imply a temporal decline — “care and food were good years ago” or “new administration/agency staff caused drop in quality” — while others report improvements under new leadership. Named staff (Inga/Inga Cameron, DONs such as Ty or Tyiesha, Kristina Bischof) are repeatedly praised, which suggests that individual leaders/staff significantly influence family perceptions.
Given the strong divergence in experiences, families should treat reviews as evidence of variability rather than uniform quality. When evaluating this facility, prospective residents and families should (a) ask specifically about which unit they would be placed in (rehab vs long‑term), (b) inquire about staffing patterns and use of agency staff on their intended unit and shifts, (c) request information on infection‑control practices, recent inspection results, and incidence of pressure ulcers or infections, (d) observe cleanliness and odors during visits and on weekends/odd shifts, (e) verify how care plans, medication schedules, and family meetings are handled, and (f) check billing/insurance handling and administrative responsiveness. The reviews indicate strong potential for excellent care when long‑tenured, attentive staff and effective leadership are present, but also reveal serious risks where staffing, management, or housekeeping falter. Families should tour, ask targeted questions, and seek unit‑specific assurances before making placement decisions.
