Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized: a substantial set of reviewers report excellent, compassionate, and effective care, while another substantial set reports neglectful, unsafe, or rude behavior. Positive reports emphasize caring individual staff, strong therapy results, helpful admissions and social work teams, and warm family interactions. Negative reports focus on serious safety and quality concerns including theft, poor communication, neglectful hygiene practices, frequent falls, and facility cleanliness problems. The volume and intensity of both positive and negative comments suggest inconsistent performance that varies by unit, shift, or staff assignment.
Care quality and clinical outcomes are a central and recurring theme. Many reviewers praise attentive nursing, personalized care, and standout therapy (PT and OT), describing successful rehab outcomes and timely return home. Specific therapy staff and wound-care nurses received repeated commendations. Conversely, there are multiple reports of serious clinical lapses: residents left in soiled linens for hours, catheter-related infections, missed medications or narcotic management concerns, repeated falls culminating in fractures, and alleged turning-related injuries from CNAs. These adverse-event reports were often coupled with claims that families were not notified promptly of hospital transfers or emergencies, worsening the perceived severity.
Staff behavior and professionalism emerge as another major pattern of inconsistency. A large number of reviews describe staff who are compassionate, friendly, and willing to go above and beyond — from front-desk receptionists and admissions coordinators to named employees who helped with transitions. However, an equally large number of reviews detail rude, curt, or even aggressive behavior from CNAs and some nursing staff. Complaints include yelling at residents, using offensive language, texting while on duty, poor personal presentation, favoritism, and lack of tact. These divergent descriptions suggest variability in training, oversight, and culture across shifts or teams.
Facility condition and cleanliness items also show a split narrative. Several reviewers report a clean, well-maintained environment with pleasant outdoor spaces and home-like common areas. Others describe strong odors, flies, dead insects on walls, black mold, unswept floors, and a general dreary atmosphere in certain areas. Multiple comments recommend a remodel or upgrades. Noise issues (frequent loud patient screaming, noisy hallways) and room amenities (missing room TVs in some cases) were also cited, negatively affecting resident comfort. These contradictions indicate uneven maintenance and housekeeping standards across the facility.
Dining, activities, and daily life had mixed feedback. Some residents and families appreciated engaging activities, supportive social programming, and meals that were tasty or satisfactory. Other reviewers reported limited activity options, residents confined to rooms with minimal stimulation, and repetitive meal choices or limited menu variety. Weekend therapy availability was specifically mentioned as limited (no PT on weekends) and mobility assistance sometimes lacking, factors that may impede rehabilitation and quality of life.
Operational and administrative problems were frequently reported. Many reviewers cited poor communication channels: unanswered phones, calls routed to voicemail without callbacks, long hold times, and an apparent failure to inform families about important health events or transfers. Transportation issues (drivers providing incorrect directions, unresponsiveness, or signing paperwork without notifying families) and delays in discharge or admissions paperwork were also noted. Theft of personal items (clothing, toiletries, chargers, shoes, purses) was reported multiple times and is a severe trust and safety concern. Several reviewers expressed the sense that management priorities skew toward placement and billing rather than consistent resident care.
Taken together, these reviews point to a facility that can deliver excellent, empathetic care in many circumstances but that also has systemic weaknesses that result in occasional — and in some reports, severe — lapses in safety, hygiene, communication, and professionalism. The patterns suggest variability by shift, unit, or staff; strong performers (therapy, some nurses, social work, admissions) can be undermined by problems in housekeeping, some CNAs, night/weekend staffing, and leadership oversight.
For families considering this facility, the evidence suggests performing a careful, on-site evaluation focused on the specific concerns raised: ask about ownership of missing-items procedures, incident/notification protocols, fall prevention and staffing ratios (nights/weekends), staff training and supervision, laundry/security of personal effects, housekeeping schedules, and weekend therapy availability. During a tour, observe multiple shifts if possible (day and evening), ask to speak with the charge nurse and social worker about communication processes, and check references from recent discharges. If you decide to place a loved one here, insist on a written care and communication plan with clear notification timelines, document valuables and clothing, and maintain regular contact (scheduled check-ins) until you have established consistent, reliable care.
In summary, the facility receives both strong praise and serious criticism. Positive experiences tend to highlight dedicated individuals and effective therapy, while negative experiences emphasize neglect, theft, poor communication, and cleanliness or safety concerns. The most actionable conclusion is that quality appears inconsistent — families should verify current conditions, ask targeted operational questions, and monitor care closely if choosing this facility.
