Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed, with sharp contrasts between positive experiences in assisted living and many troubling reports focused on memory care. Several families praise individual staff members, supportive office and nursing staff, clean grounds, private/semi-private rooms, and a range of activities. There are multiple accounts of staff who are compassionate and treat residents with dignity, and in a number of cases reviewers explicitly recommend the facility. A new memory care coordinator and specific employees have received positive mention, suggesting pockets of good leadership and caregiving.
However, a large portion of reviews document serious problems, especially in the memory care unit. Recurring themes include neglect, poor hygiene, and safety failures: residents allegedly not bathed, rooms left filthy with feces or urine odor, bedsores, and falls where families were not notified. Several reviewers report medication mismanagement or missing medications and items alleged stolen by staff. There are alarming allegations of staff sleeping while on duty and broken or unresponsive call buttons, which together create a perception of unsafe and inconsistent care. These are not isolated complaints but are repeated across multiple summaries, indicating a pattern rather than single incidents.
Staffing and management issues are a dominant thread. Many reviews describe a decline in staff quality over time, high turnover, and poorly trained or inexperienced employees replacing previously attentive staff. Families frequently report poor communication: staff being unreachable for days, inadequate follow-up after hospital assessments, and formal complaints having to be filed. Specific administrative concerns such as Medicaid billing questions, discrepancy between the facility's care pledge and actual practice, and reports of empty beds raise trust and transparency issues. The use of telemedicine in place of in-person physician visits and lack of weekend coverage were mentioned as examples of cost-cutting or reduced medical oversight.
Facility condition and operations show a split picture. Multiple reviewers describe the building and grounds as attractive and well-maintained, and several residents enjoy activities and private rooms. Conversely, other reviewers report unacceptable cleanliness in resident rooms and bathrooms, sticky floors, urine odor, and overcrowded memory care spaces with little stimulation. This suggests inconsistent housekeeping and variable standards between units or shifts.
Safety and regulatory concerns are significant in the feedback. Allegations include safety violations, repeated injuries without notification, and negative media coverage related to the memory care unit. Families report moving loved ones out or actively seeking new placements after experiencing neglect or theft. At the same time, some families report positive hospice coordination and staff who go out of their way to help, indicating that outcomes may depend heavily on which staff and leadership are present.
In summary, the reviews paint a facility with real strengths in certain areas—friendly and compassionate staff members, attractive grounds, and supportive pockets of clinical staff—but also chronic and serious weaknesses, particularly in memory care, management, staffing consistency, communication, safety, and cleanliness. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive testimonials against the recurring, severe complaints. Key questions to ask when evaluating this facility would include current staffing ratios in memory care, staff turnover, the status of call button and safety systems, specific hygiene and medication protocols, how incidents are communicated to families, and evidence of corrective actions taken in response to formal complaints.
