Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but leans strongly toward concern and caution. Several reviewers praise individual caregivers and some nursing staff for compassion, attentiveness, and creating a friendly atmosphere; specific employees (Alison and Vanessa) are called out positively, and some families reported that their relatives felt safe, settled, and happy. However, a large number of reviews document systemic problems — especially around communication, clinical quality, and leadership — that have caused significant distress for multiple families.
Care quality is a central and recurring issue. Multiple reviewers reported serious clinical failures: frequent hospitalizations for urinary tract infections, sepsis, and even septic shock; wound care neglect leading to infections and necrotic bed sores; and medication errors (including wrong-patient medication administration and poorly managed pain medication). Some reviewers described paraplegic residents and other high-acuity patients receiving inadequate care despite the facility claiming to be a 'skilled' nursing provider. While a few reviewers noted good nursing and therapy staff (and temporary therapy replacements that were effective), the dominant pattern is of substandard clinical oversight with grave consequences for some residents.
Staffing and staff behavior present a mixed picture. Many families praised frontline caregivers and certain nurses as friendly, respectful, and compassionate. At the same time, numerous comments point to understaffing, stressed employees, and a risk of losing strong staff members. This shortage appears to contribute to delayed or missed care, poor follow-through (for example, searches for lost items that were promised but not completed), and an environment described as stressful for residents. Reviewers also highlighted pleasant interactions and close bonds between some staff and residents, indicating that care quality may vary significantly by team or shift.
Management, communication, and responsiveness were frequent and serious complaints. Families report difficulty reaching the director of nursing and administrators, especially on weekends, and say that concerns have been dismissed or that families were blamed when problems arose. Several reviewers described management as uncaring or incompetent, and some noted that administrators were unavailable or affected by COVID at times. Lack of timely family notification about clinical changes, wounds, or hospital transfers was noted, increasing family frustration and distrust. A few reviewers indicated escalation to corporate contacts or threatened legal action as a result of perceived negligence.
Therapy and medical oversight drew specific criticism. Therapy services were called a "joke" by some reviewers, though intermittent positive experiences (such as replacement therapists who performed well) were also reported. Many families said that physicians rarely saw patients in the facility and that they had to arrange outside primary care, suggesting insufficient on-site medical oversight. These gaps likely compound other clinical problems and contribute to avoidable hospital readmissions.
Facility, hygiene, and dining concerns were also present. Multiple reviewers mentioned strong odors, poor cleanliness, and cases where residents were put on inappropriate diets (for example, being limited to liquids). Food quality was consistently reported as poor and disliked by residents. Logistical problems such as transport issues and lost personal items (glasses and clothing) with inadequate follow-up further erode trust in operational practices.
Patterns and overall impression: the reviews reveal a bipolar experience—some families had positive, even exemplary, interactions with individual caregivers and felt their relatives were well cared for, while many others experienced severe lapses in clinical care, communication failures, and management dysfunction. The most serious themes—wound neglect, medication errors, recurrent infections leading to hospitalization, and lack of family notification—are cause for significant concern and suggest systemic issues rather than isolated incidents. Conversely, consistent praise for particular caregivers indicates pockets of good practice that may be undermined by staffing variability and leadership problems.
In summary, prospective residents and families should be aware of both the facility’s strengths (compassionate frontline staff and some capable nurses/therapists) and its recurring weaknesses (communication failures, staffing shortages, management concerns, and serious clinical care issues). If considering this facility, families may want to ask specific questions about wound care protocols, medication administration safeguards, staff-to-resident ratios, physician coverage, incident notification policies, and turnover rates; they may also wish to meet or observe current clinical leadership and the staff who would be caring for their loved one. The reviews suggest substantial variability in experience and highlight areas that require close monitoring if one chooses to place a loved one at this facility.
