Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized, with several reviewers reporting warm, professional interactions and good rehabilitative care while a significant number of other reviewers describe serious quality and safety concerns. Positive comments emphasize compassionate staff members, an apparently effective rehab team for certain patients (for example, post-stroke rehabilitation), a helpful and flexible administrator, pleasant meals and a knowledgeable dietary department, and instances where residents integrated well into a supportive community. These positive reports suggest that parts of the facility — certain staff, the dietary team, and rehabilitation services — can deliver satisfactory or even strong experiences for some residents.
However, the negative comments raise multiple, recurring and potentially serious issues. A major cluster of complaints centers on medication management: reports of medication errors, improper medication passes, and medications not being given on time were explicitly mentioned and framed as a direct safety risk to residents. Understaffing is another common theme — one review cited only two aides being responsible for roughly 20 residents — and reviewers link that understaffing to inadequate personal care, delayed responses to calls for help, and situations where family members felt compelled to remove their loved ones. Several reviews also describe resident injuries (such as blisters) and prolonged periods of distress (residents in pain, screaming, begging to go to the hospital), which compounds concerns about both clinical oversight and timely response to needs.
Staff behavior and consistency are significant pain points. Multiple reviewers describe unprofessional, rude, or disrespectful conduct from nurses (with specific names cited, e.g., Sasha and Terri), and there are repeated mentions of cruel or negligent behavior on some shifts, particularly night staff. At the same time, other reviewers describe staff as caring and professional, indicating inconsistent performance across personnel and shifts. High staff turnover and reports of an ineffective or useless social worker and allegedly incompetent administration further point to systemic management and staffing instability rather than isolated incidents.
Facility cleanliness and environment also show conflicting reports: while some reviewers call the facility clean and well-kept, others report unsanitary conditions — urine odor, bug problems, trash — and even reference a state citation and recommendations for shutdown. This contrast suggests variability by unit, time, or shift and raises concerns about housekeeping and infection-control consistency. COVID visitation restrictions were mentioned as a complicating factor in at least one account, with families noting that visitation limits coincided with declines (e.g., unexplained weight loss) that were not communicated to family members.
Management and communication emerge as cross-cutting themes. Positive reports highlight a kind, flexible administrator and supportive nurses who communicate and integrate residents into the community; negative reports accuse administration of focusing on finances over resident welfare, poor communication with families, and failure to address systemic problems. The net impression from the reviews is therefore mixed but leans toward caution: while there are clear examples of competent, compassionate care — particularly in the rehab and dietary areas — there are numerous, serious allegations about medication safety, staffing shortages, inconsistent staff behavior, communication failures, and cleanliness issues.
In summary, the reviews describe a facility with pockets of good practice and some highly praised staff and services, but they also document repeated, serious concerns that affect resident safety and well-being. The most frequently cited and serious problems are medication administration failures, understaffing leading to delayed or insufficient care, inconsistent staff professionalism (including named individuals), questionable cleanliness in some reports, and weak or inconsistent management response. Families considering this facility should weigh these mixed signals carefully, and prospective decision-makers would be well advised to ask specific questions about current staffing levels, medication management protocols, recent state citations or corrective actions, and how the facility addresses communication and quality issues raised by families.
