Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but strongly polarized: a substantial portion of reviewers describe very good to excellent care, particularly praising nurses, aides, therapy staff, and ancillary teams (kitchen and laundry), while another portion reports serious lapses in care, communication, hygiene, and management professionalism. Positive reviews emphasize effective rehabilitation services, compassionate daily care, clean and attractive surroundings, and a warm, family-like atmosphere. Negative reviews describe safety incidents, neglectful behavior, poor communication about medications and care, and unprofessional actions by management or staff.
Care quality and clinical services are commonly cited strengths. Multiple reviewers note high-quality physical and occupational therapy, successful short-term rehab outcomes, wound care, and access to diagnostic services such as x-ray. Several families reported that skilled nursing staff and therapists helped meet rehabilitation goals and would return or recommend the facility for rehab stays. Conversely, some reviewers experienced serious clinical or safety issues: one reported a fall on the first night, another had assistive equipment inappropriately removed (grabber removed), and others mentioned concerns about bed handling and noisy roommates affecting resident safety and comfort.
Staff and staffing patterns are a major theme with clear division. Many reviews praise aides and nurses as attentive, kind, and going out of their way to make residents comfortable; department heads and certain staff members receive specific commendation. Several accounts describe a “family-like” environment and respectful treatment. At the same time, multiple reviews allege inconsistent staff quality, overworked or short-handed shifts, slow response to call bells, and poor bedside communication. Some reviews describe unprofessional conduct by management or staff — including speaking poorly about residents and packing soiled diapers into a resident’s belongings — which are serious concerns cited by more than one reviewer.
Communication and operational issues recur across reviews. Families reported poor communication regarding medications and care plans, with at least one mention of meds not being communicated and other reports of medication changes without clear explanation. Operational shortcomings include an initial lack of bedside phones for family contact, call bells not being answered promptly, and delays in room placement (e.g., getting a room with a window only after two weeks). Several reviewers credited hospital social workers for handling admission details smoothly, suggesting the admissions handoff can be uneven depending on who is involved.
Hygiene, cleanliness, and neglect are among the most serious negative patterns. While many reviewers say the facility is clean and the laundry team does a good job, others report troubling incidents: soiled clothing and diapers returned with belongings, residents left in urine, and at least one mention of untreated head lice. These reports point to inconsistent standards in personal care and laundry handling for some residents, and they contribute heavily to negative assessments when they occur.
Dining and resident life receive mixed feedback. Several reviewers praise the food and the efforts of the kitchen staff, and some note meaningful activities and holiday events (for example, a Thanksgiving dinner open to families). Others complain of poor or cold meals and insufficient attention to resident needs at mealtime. Activity programming and therapy are described positively by residents who enjoyed activities and found therapy helpful, reinforcing the facility’s rehabilitation focus.
COVID-related issues appear in multiple reviews but with differing perspectives. Some reviewers describe isolation during COVID and limited family contact; others explicitly oppose COVID restrictions, masks, or vaccines and express disagreement with facility policies or public health measures. This indicates varied expectations and experiences around visitation and infection-control practices, which may affect satisfaction depending on family preferences.
Patterns and takeaways: the facility appears to provide strong clinical rehab and many staff members deliver compassionate, effective care, making it a solid option for short-term rehabilitation and for many long-term residents. However, inconsistent staffing, lapses in communication, and several serious allegations of neglect and unprofessional conduct create a notable risk that a resident’s experience could be significantly worse depending on timing, staff on duty, and individual circumstances. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive accounts of therapy and attentive caregivers against the reports of hygiene issues, management lapses, and safety incidents. When possible, ask facility leadership about staffing levels, incident reporting practices, family communication protocols, and how they address allegations of neglect to better understand how they mitigate the concerns raised in some reviews.
