Overall sentiment and major patterns The reviews for Princeton Place are highly polarized but skew strongly negative. Across dozens of summaries multiple recurring themes emerge: intermittent, often-good caregiving from individual CNAs, nurses, therapists, and social workers contrasted with systemic failures in staffing, facility maintenance, administration, and safety. Positive comments consistently single out individual employees or small teams — compassionate CNAs, skilled wound care nurses and nurse practitioners, effective physical therapists, and helpful social workers (several reviewers named Gina, Shaleesha, Justin, Sonia, and Natalie). In those cases families reported good wound care, successful rehabilitation, attentive post-surgery care, and compassionate end-of-life support. However, these positive experiences sit alongside numerous and serious complaints that suggest operational problems are widespread rather than isolated.
Care quality, staffing, and supervision A dominant theme is inconsistent clinical care and understaffing. Many reviews describe ignored call lights, long waits for assistance (sometimes 20–45 minutes or more), residents left unattended in wheelchairs or rooms, failure to change or turn residents, inadequate bathing and hygiene, and missed or altered medications for days. Multiple accounts describe delayed or refused emergency response (refusal to call 911, delayed hospital transfers by hours), oxygen runs out or wound vacs not ready, and examples of medication errors or withheld narcotics and necessary prescriptions. These failures culminated in serious harms in some reports: falls with long delays before help, injuries requiring ER transfer or additional surgery, rapid health deterioration after missed care, and in a few reviews alleged deaths or transfers to hospital after neglect. Reviewers also mention CNAs clipped diabetic toenails, caregivers lying about care performed, and mismanagement of catheters and wound dressings. Although some nurses and CNAs are praised as capable and caring, the overall pattern indicates staffing levels, training, or supervision are inadequate to ensure consistent, safe care across the facility.
Facility condition, infection control, and maintenance Maintenance and sanitation are another recurring problem. Many reviewers report filthy carpets, pervasive urine and bodily-odor smells, visible pests (cockroaches, ants, flies, spiders), house flies in food and coffee, and filthy hallways. Specific incidents include resident hands in another's food, dirty gloves used to wipe feces, soiled bedding left unchanged, and unemptied bedside commodes. Building infrastructure problems are repeatedly mentioned: broken or out-of-service elevators, nonfunctional TVs or call light systems, heat or air-conditioning failures (including heat up to 85 degrees and no ventilation), windows left open with heaters on, and long periods without fresh water in bedside pitchers. These conditions raise concerns about infection control and basic safety. Some reviewers contrasted this with a few floors or rooms being recently clean or renovated, but the dominant impression is an aging facility with maintenance neglect and inconsistent sanitation practices.
Safety incidents, abuse allegations, and security concerns Several reviews list serious safety incidents and allegations, including patient-to-patient aggression, resident falls with concussion and large wounds, reports of sexual assault not sufficiently investigated, residents left to wander or leave the building unnoticed, and staff allowing combustible/unsafe behaviors like smoking near oxygen. There are also allegations of bullying by guardians and staff disrespect (notably toward veterans). Some reviews call for regulatory investigation, lawsuits, or closure of the facility due to patient safety risks. While it is not possible to verify each allegation from reviews alone, the frequency and gravity of these claims (missed emergencies, physical injuries, unattended residents, suspected abuse, and inadequate dementia care) point to systemic supervision and safety shortcomings.
Management, communication, and financial concerns Communication and administrative responsiveness are heavily criticized. Families report unanswered phone calls, front desk staff who refuse to answer, inconsistencies in information from staff, missing discharge paperwork or medication lists, and poor coordination around transfers. Several reviewers allege financial misconduct: extra charges (e.g., cable), alleged overbilling to Medicare, nonpayment of invoices, attempts to change ownership entities to avoid liabilities, and unauthorized withdrawals or theft of funds. Theft of personal belongings — clothing, rings, and money — is repeatedly reported, with some accounts of property going missing from rooms or laundry. These administrative and financial issues contribute to an overall impression of mismanagement and possible fraud in addition to poor clinical oversight.
Dining, nutrition, and activities Dining experiences vary widely in the reviews. Some families praise the food and dining areas — noting good meals and plates that looked appealing — while many other accounts describe inadequate nutrition (small sandwiches after trays removed, meals insufficient for wound healing), staff stealing meals, and inconsistent meal service (forgotten or late breakfast trays). Activities and entertainment are frequently described as minimal or nonexistent, with complaints about lack of TVs, extra charges for cable, and few engagement opportunities for residents. This inconsistent dining and recreation picture mirrors the larger pattern of spotty service quality: where staff and resources are present, things can be good, but systemic shortages and neglect leave many residents underserved.
Positive pockets and leadership changes Despite pervasive negative reports, there are genuine pockets of positive experience. Several reviewers described compassionate caregiving, clean rooms, good rehab outcomes, and responsive clinicians. A number of summaries mention positive changes under new management or praise particular administrators and long-tenured staff who foster a family atmosphere. These positive mentions suggest that individual staff commitment and targeted managerial improvements can produce good outcomes, but reviewers indicate these are not yet uniform or facility-wide.
Notable patterns and recommendations for families Key patterns to note: (1) repeated reports of understaffing and ignored call lights; (2) frequent maintenance and sanitation failures including pest issues; (3) serious safety and clinical incidents (delayed hospital transfers, missed meds, falls, alleged abuse); and (4) administrative and financial irregularities including theft and billing complaints. If considering this facility, families should explicitly verify current staffing ratios, recent inspection or survey results, infection-control records, and any regulatory actions. Ask for written care plans, medication lists at admission and discharge, documentation of wound care, and the names/roles of staff responsible for supervision. In cases of concerning incidents, contacting the local long-term care ombudsman and state licensing agency is prudent.
Conclusion The body of reviews paints a picture of a facility with a mix of dedicated, compassionate individuals and systemic organizational failures. Positive experiences often center on individual caregivers, wound and therapy teams, and select administrators. However, recurring issues — neglectful or inconsistent nursing care, sanitation and pest problems, broken infrastructure, failures in emergency response, theft/mismanagement, and alarming abuse or safety allegations — are frequent enough to represent significant risk. Overall, while there are instances of very good care, the volume and severity of negative reports indicate substantial, facility-wide concerns that families and regulators should take seriously when evaluating Princeton Place.
