Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly mixed but leans strongly negative when averaged: many reviewers reported severe, recurring problems with care quality, cleanliness, medical safety, and management, while a substantial minority described genuinely compassionate staff, helpful administration, and satisfactory experiences. The reviews reveal a facility with strikingly uneven performance — pockets of excellence and caring individuals exist alongside systemic problems that have caused serious harm or near-harm to residents in multiple accounts.
Care quality and clinical safety are central concerns. Multiple reviews describe delayed or withheld medications, improper triage, and clinical neglect that resulted in emergency department transfers, ICU stays, infections (including septic episodes), and in at least one account, death followed by allegedly inappropriate handling of the body. There are repeated citations of pressure ulcers (including stage 4 bedsores), failure to turn patients, prolonged soiling and poor hygiene (residents reportedly left in the same clothes for days or in wet/dirty diapers), and inadequate monitoring of blood sugar, vomiting, or urinary issues. Several reviewers reported that essential equipment and services were missing at admission — no walker, no bedside commode/toilet chair, no medications provided — and that physical therapy or rehabilitation was insufficient or not provided as promised.
Staffing and staff behavior are major, recurring themes. Understaffing and high turnover are mentioned repeatedly and are linked to long call-light response times, neglectful care, and low morale. Reviewers describe a wide range of staff behavior: many accounts praise individual CNAs, RNs, receptionists, therapists, and a few administrators for being caring, professional, and responsive; other accounts describe rude, confrontational, unqualified, or even threatening staff, and some allege theft or manipulation. Night shift and weekend staffing problems were emphasized. This variability suggests inconsistent hiring, training, or retention practices and a reliance on a few highly committed employees to offset systemic deficits.
Cleanliness, infection control, and environmental safety are serious and frequent issues. Numerous reviewers reported persistent urine and fecal odor throughout halls and rooms, stained carpets and floors, trash not being picked up, black mold, and even rodent sightings. Infection-control lapses were also reported: COVID-positive and non-COVID residents reportedly shared rooms at times, quarantine/visitor policies were inconsistently applied, and some reviews suggest that staff may have transmitted illness. These reports raise immediate concerns about sanitation protocols and infection prevention practices. Conversely, some reviewers praised a clean lobby, maintained grounds, and visible practices like masks and visitor sign-ins, highlighting inconsistency across shifts, units, or timeframes.
Dining and housekeeping largely skew negative in the reviews. Many accounts describe cold, unappetizing, or poorly handled meals (cold oatmeal, undercooked food, meals inappropriate for diabetics), while a smaller number mention fresh options like salads and fruit. Housekeeping lapses — sticky floors, urine stains, unclean rooms, and trash buildup — are among the most frequently cited complaints and are often linked by reviewers to neglect and understaffing.
Management and administration elicit polarized feedback. Several reviews commend an involved, compassionate administrator and front-desk staff who listen, coordinate transportation, and go above and beyond (including specific positive anecdotes). Other reviews accuse management of deception, fake positive reviews, poor communication, failure to address complaints, hostility toward families, and ineffective corporate oversight (some comments specifically note a decline after a corporate change of ownership). There are repeated calls for inspection by health authorities and some reviewers explicitly recommend choosing another facility.
Rehabilitation and therapy services are described inconsistently. Some families found therapy staff helpful and credited the department with positive outcomes, while others reported inadequate rehabilitation (sessions as short as 30 minutes, no real exercise, or failure to provide promised therapy), contributing to poor recoveries and declines. Equipment problems (broken wheelchairs, nonfunctional beds) and inadequate supplies further undermine rehab efforts.
Visitation, communication, and transparency are problematic in several accounts. Families reported being turned away at the door, denied visits on holidays, or unable to reach staff by phone; at the same time a few reviewers described efficient, welcoming sign-in procedures and regular COVID updates by Zoom. Many negative reviews emphasize poor or delayed communication from nursing staff and administration during critical issues.
In summary, the dominant and repeated concerns are systemic understaffing, inconsistent and sometimes dangerous clinical care, severe cleanliness and infection-control problems, poor dining and housekeeping, and erratic management responsiveness. Balanced against those negatives are repeated examples of compassionate, professional staff members and a few leaders who improved individual experiences. The pattern suggests that a small number of committed employees can and do provide very good care, but that structural problems (staffing, training, sanitation, oversight) create frequent and sometimes severe risks for many residents. Prospective residents and families should weigh these mixed reports carefully: where you encounter strong, visible leadership and consistent staffing, care may be good, but multiple reviewers urge caution and recommend inspection or selecting an alternative facility unless specific, documented improvements and oversight are confirmed.
