Overall sentiment from the collected reviews is predominantly negative, with a cluster of serious concerns around clinical care, staff responsiveness, facility condition, and management transparency. Multiple reviewers describe incidents that go beyond routine dissatisfaction: allegations include delayed medical attention that a reviewer contends contributed to a death, repeated instances of residents left in soiled clothing or feces for extended periods, inadequate hydration, and medication-administration risks. These are not isolated minor complaints but patterns that reviewers present as systemic problems tied to understaffing and poor staff attentiveness.
Staff issues are a recurring theme. Several reviews accuse staff of not listening to families or residents, being unsympathetic, or behaving unprofessionally. There are also specific privacy and dignity concerns: reviewers report doors being left open during personal care and nursing staff failing to preserve resident privacy. Understaffing is cited as a driver of these behaviors — when employees are too stretched, basic tasks like timely cleaning, repositioning, toileting assistance, and hydration appear to be missed. One reviewer also described the administrator as unprofessional and unresponsive, which compounds the perception that complaints are not being handled effectively.
Facility condition and maintenance problems are also frequently mentioned. Reviews describe an outdated, unattractive environment with visible neglect: persistent urine smells, water pipes visible in ceilings, and rooms that reviewers say need renovation. Cleanliness concerns extend beyond cosmetic issues to care hygiene and infection risk: reports of filthy conditions and staff cleaning patients of waste are alarming for a nursing/rehab setting. Safety hazards outside the building — specifically parking lot ice and snow not being cleared — were also noted, indicating lapses in basic property maintenance and risk mitigation.
Management, communications, and online presence show a troubling pattern in the reviews. Several reviewers say the facility is active on Facebook but unresponsive to direct inquiries, blocks users from commenting, and deletes negative reviews. Others say management does not return calls or fails to provide requested medical records. These behaviors, if accurate, suggest a lack of transparency and accountability that aggravates family members’ concerns and undermines trust.
Despite the breadth of negative feedback, there are a few positive mentions. A small number of reviewers called staff welcoming and liked the food; one reviewer gave an overall 5-star rating and another referenced a "jelly coop" (unclear whether this refers to a food item or activity). These positive notes indicate that experiences may vary by unit, shift, or individual staff members, and that not every interaction at the facility is reported as problematic.
Taken together, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with serious care-delivery and management issues that several reviewers consider unsafe or unacceptable for vulnerable residents. Recurrent themes — understaffing, delays in medical attention, dignity and hygiene failures, maintenance neglect, and questionable handling of online criticism — are significant and should be investigated by prospective families. If you are considering this facility, it would be prudent to schedule an in-person visit during different shifts, ask for recent inspection reports and staffing ratios, request documentation of staff training and incident responses, and verify how the facility handles complaints and medical record requests before making a placement decision.
