Overall sentiment from the compiled reviews is predominantly negative, with multiple accounts describing serious cleanliness, safety, and care-quality concerns. While a minority of reviews praise individual staff members as friendly, professional, and attentive, the dominant themes are neglect, poor facility upkeep, and potentially dangerous lapses in medical supervision. The scope and severity of the negative reports lead reviewers to strongly advise against choosing this facility.
Facilities and hygiene are a major and recurring problem in the reviews. Multiple reports describe the facility as filthy, with roach infestations and at least one mention of bedbugs. Bathrooms and resident rooms are described as dirty, and there is a specific account of a room being sprayed while a resident was present—an alarming safety and infection-control lapse. Routine housekeeping tasks such as laundry are reported as not being completed. These environmental concerns alone create both infection risks and a poor living environment for vulnerable residents.
Care quality and medical oversight are other critical areas of concern. Reviewers report insufficient personal care—residents allegedly not being bathed, dressed, or having laundry done. Several comments indicate neglectful behavior by staff, with pain complaints ignored and little to no observable medical improvement for some residents. There are very serious allegations regarding medication and diagnosis: one review claims an inappropriate, non‑FDA‑approved schizophrenia medication was used and describes residents appearing constantly asleep or "zombie‑like." Another review raises the possibility that a stroke was missed or misdiagnosed, and observers noted unexplained bruising. Additionally, reviewers state that the facility's onsite doctor was not seen and that case workers dropped the ball, pointing to systemic failures in medical oversight and coordination of care.
Staffing and staff behavior present a mixed but concerning picture. Several reviewers describe staff as rude or poorly trained and recount delays in emergency response—one account mentions a resident being left on a stretcher. At the same time, some reviews call out friendly, professional, and attentive staff who perform reliable check‑ins and provide good care when present. This contrast suggests inconsistent staffing levels and training: when adequate staff are available, care may be acceptable, but staffing shortages and turnover appear to lead to significant lapses and variability in the resident experience.
Management, safety, and patterns of neglect emerge as systemic themes. Multiple reviewers express that the facility is unsafe and should be shut down, citing negligence, delayed emergency responses, and poor overall care quality. Reports of residents appearing sad, lifeless, or disengaged add to concerns about the facility's ability to provide a respectful, stimulating, and supportive environment. Notably, reviewers do not provide substantial information about dining quality or activities programming; the absence of positive commentary in these areas combined with pervasive negative feedback about basic care and cleanliness is concerning.
In summary, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with serious and repeated deficiencies in cleanliness, basic personal care, medical oversight, and emergency responsiveness. There are isolated positive remarks about some staff members who are caring and professional, but these are overshadowed by frequent reports of infestation, neglect, inappropriate medication practices, and safety lapses. Prospective residents and families should exercise caution, seek detailed, current information from the facility and licensing/inspection reports, and consider visiting unannounced to verify cleanliness, staffing levels, medication management, and emergency procedures before making placement decisions.
