Overall sentiment about this facility is deeply polarized: reviews range from glowing accounts of exceptional rehabilitation and compassionate bedside care to severe allegations of abuse, neglect, theft, and systemic mismanagement. Many reviews applaud floor-level caregivers, therapists, and specific staff members who produced measurable improvements in residents’ function and wellbeing. Conversely, a substantial number of reviews raise serious safety, hygiene, and administrative concerns that have led families to file state complaints, involve Adult Protective Services, or seek legal action.
Positive themes: numerous reviewers emphasize that physical therapy and speech-language services are strong points; multiple accounts credit PT/SLP teams with returning residents to independent function (for example, cases where a mother walked without a walker after rehab). Floor staff in several reports are described as kind, compassionate, and attentive—providing individualized attention and going above and beyond for some residents. In positive accounts, administrative staff are efficient, the facility is comfortable and welcoming, and discharge back home was handled smoothly. These positive experiences tend to highlight specific staff members by name and describe real, observable clinical improvements.
Negative themes and patient-safety concerns: a large cluster of reviews describe serious problems. Allegations include abuse and neglect severe enough that reviewers claim it contributed to a resident's decline or death, reports of medication errors or missed meds, and accusations that medical records were delayed or altered. Multiple reviewers reported theft of belongings and medications, and others said residents were dehydrated, undernourished, or denied showers and timely diaper changes—some resulting in hospital or ICU admissions. Unsanitary environmental conditions are described repeatedly: soiled linens on the floor, filthy bathrooms, bad odors, and threadbare bedding. Food quality and adequacy are frequently criticized (cold oatmeal, sandwiches, or otherwise inedible meals), and some reviews describe sleep deprivation from bright lights left on at night and noisy roommates.
Administrative, communication, and operational issues: many reviewers highlight poor communication and unresponsiveness from management—phone lines that go unanswered, voicemail problems, long call-backs, and difficulty getting information about residents. There are repeated references to understaffing and high turnover that seem to undercut otherwise capable floor staff. Several reviews allege favoritism or poor leadership practices and claim management prioritizes cost over care. Discharge planning is inconsistent: while some residents experienced well-coordinated returns home, others report rushed or failed discharges, missing or delayed shipment of personal belongings, and little help from discharge services. A few reviewers also allege harassment related to vaccination policy enforcement and recount racism and unprofessional conduct by staff.
Patterns and contradictions: a clear pattern emerges where the same facility delivers both high-quality, compassionate care and alarming lapses—often within different units, different shifts, or under different supervisors. Positive reports tend to focus on the competence and dedication of direct care staff and therapy teams, while negative reports cluster around managerial oversight, systemic resource shortfalls, and safety/cleanliness failures. Several reviewers explicitly call out inconsistent quality: floor staff are praised, yet the facility overall is described as understaffed, dirty, or mismanaged. There are also claims that some highly positive online reviews are inauthentic, which further complicates an objective assessment.
Implications and practical considerations: given the mix of strong rehabilitative outcomes and serious safety allegations, prospective residents and families should exercise caution and perform targeted due diligence. Key steps include reviewing the facility's most recent state inspection reports and complaint history, asking specifically about staffing ratios and weekend/night coverage, inquiring about medication administration protocols and auditing practices, touring the specific unit where a loved one would stay to observe cleanliness and routines, asking for references from current families, and clarifying discharge and belongings-handling procedures in writing. If safety concerns are suspected after admission, document incidents carefully, escalate to state regulators or APS as appropriate, and consider alternative placements promptly.
In summary, this facility elicits strong praise for individual caregivers and rehabilitation services from many reviewers, but recurring and serious allegations about neglect, theft, hygiene, communication breakdowns, and management failures appear frequently enough to be concerning. The reviews indicate that quality may vary widely by unit, shift, or staff, making direct observation, verification of regulatory records, and ongoing vigilance essential for anyone considering this facility for a loved one.
