Overall sentiment across these review summaries is strongly mixed but leans heavily negative, with multiple reports describing serious quality, safety, and sanitation problems alongside a smaller set of positive accounts highlighting specific staff, departments, or recent management changes. The reviews show a pattern of highly inconsistent experiences: some families describe compassionate, competent caregivers and good specialty services, while many others report neglect, unsafe conditions, theft, and poor management. That variability appears tied to staffing instability, frequent ownership changes, and the use of agency staff.
Care quality and responsiveness: A dominant theme is chronic understaffing and slow response times. Numerous reviews describe long delays answering call lights (some stating 50+ minute waits), difficulty locating nurses or aides, and a high resident-to-aide ratio. These conditions are linked in the reviews to instances of neglect: residents left in bed when they needed assistance, buzzers sounding continuously, missed appointments or refusal to transport residents, and poor discharge planning or lack of assistance with appeals. At the same time, several reviewers explicitly praise individual nurses (notably some male nurses) and specific departments — indicating that competent, caring staff are present at times, but that care is inconsistent and dependent on which employees are on duty.
Staff behavior and misconduct: Multiple reviews allege serious staff misconduct, including nurses and aides seen smoking or drinking outside, reports of liquor bottles in the yard, and staff using social media while on shift. Theft and missing items — including allegations of money and lost narcotics — are repeatedly mentioned, with at least one report invoking police involvement. There are also frequent descriptions of rude or confrontational attitudes from nursing aides and some nurses, and of employees being mistreated by management, which reviewers say contributes to turnover and worse resident care.
Facilities and cleanliness: Many reviewers report an old, outdated building with variable room conditions — some rooms described as okay or good, others as poor. The most severe complaints involve sanitation: blood and feces on the floor, filthy floors not mopped, cigarette butts and trash around the property, and a generally 'nasty' environment in some accounts. These descriptions raise serious infection control and safety concerns. Conversely, a few reviews note that previous ownership made a visible effort with floors washed and polished, suggesting the level of environmental cleanliness has fluctuated with management.
Dining, activities, and therapy: Several reviews describe meals as poor and say there is little to no organized activity programming. However, the therapy department receives positive mentions — characterized as fun and engaging — and the dialysis center staff are singled out as competent and caring. This suggests rehabilitative and specialized clinical services may be stronger than general nursing home day-to-day engagement and dining services in some cases.
Management, ownership, and patterns over time: Reviewers repeatedly cite frequent ownership and management changes, with comments that leadership seems to change yearly. This turnover is tied to a sense of instability: some reviews praise recent new management and a very good administrator who improved care, while others claim recent ownership is very poor, expensive, and mistreats staff. A few reviews mention the facility being shut down or subject to state action, indicating regulatory concerns at times. Overall, these patterns suggest systemic problems with leadership continuity and consistent standards of care.
Memory care note: One consistent positive is an 'excellent secured memory care neighborhood' with specialized dementia programming noted by reviewers. However, it is also specified that this neighborhood is not a behavioral memory care unit, which may limit suitability for residents with significant behavioral needs.
Notable risks and warnings: Several reviews describe allegations that are particularly concerning from a safety and legal standpoint — lost narcotics, theft, police involvement, and reports of blood and feces on the floor. These claims, if accurate, represent severe lapses in medication management, security, and infection control. Many reviewers explicitly advise avoiding the facility.
Conclusion and implications: The review summaries paint a picture of a facility with serious and recurring problems (cleanliness, staffing shortages, slow response times, alleged theft and misconduct, inconsistent management) that are occasionally offset by pockets of good care (individual nurses, therapy, dialysis, and a secured memory care neighborhood). For families considering this facility, the mixed nature of reviews suggests the following: verify the facilitys current regulatory status and recent inspection reports; request information on staffing levels and staff turnover; arrange an in-person visit at multiple times of day to observe cleanliness, staff responsiveness, mealtimes, and activities; ask specifically about medication controls and security; and, if dementia-specific care is needed, evaluate the secured memory care neighborhood while confirming it meets behavioral care needs. Reports of recent management improvements should be investigated and confirmed, but the number and seriousness of negative allegations warrant caution and careful, up-to-date verification before making placement decisions.
