Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial number of families report excellent, attentive care—especially from specific nurses, aides, and therapy staff—while an equally significant set of reviews describe neglect, unsafe staffing, serious clinical errors, and poor management. The facility appears to deliver strong rehabilitative outcomes for some patients (notably those who praised physical, occupational, and speech therapy), yet multiple reviewers recount severe lapses in basic nursing care and safety that resulted in hospitalization, clinical deterioration, and, in some cases, death.
Staff and caregiving: Many reviews praise individual staff members by name (for example, Drew the speech therapist, Natasha in admissions, and Jenny at the front desk) and describe aides and nurses who are compassionate, communicative, and willing to go the extra mile. Positive experiences center on attentive bedside care, effective therapy that enabled discharges home, clear family communication, and a welcoming atmosphere. However, this positive picture is inconsistent. Numerous reports indicate chronic understaffing, especially on weekends and after hours, which translates into long waits for help, residents not checked on, missed baths, residents left to eat alone in bed, and basic needs such as water or repositioning unmet. Several reviews specifically call out poor or unsafe nurse-to-patient ratios.
Clinical care and safety: Serious clinical concerns recur across multiple reviews. Complaints include missed or incorrect medications, delays in medication ordering, insufficient pain control, and opposite extremes—reports of overmedication with associated sedation and hallucinations. There are multiple accounts of neglect: wounds not rebandaged timely, patients not fed, and inadequate monitoring that allowed dehydration, infections (including C. difficile), wound worsening, kidney failure, and other severe outcomes. Some reviews allege refusal or mishandling of emergency calls/EMS, unattended emergencies, hospital readmissions, and at least one instance where life support was withdrawn following deterioration in-facility. These reports raise red flags about both clinical oversight and escalation protocols.
Therapy and rehabilitation: Therapy services receive some of the strongest positive feedback. Several families reported excellent physical, occupational, and speech therapy and credited the therapy teams with enabling successful home discharges. At the same time, other reviewers found promised rehab services delayed, postponed repeatedly, or inadequate—one consistent theme being that rehab experiences vary depending on timing, staffing, and possibly insurance. Thus therapy can be a clear strength but appears inconsistent across stays.
Facility condition, housekeeping, and infection control: Reviews are split on cleanliness. Some visitors and families described a very clean, pleasant-smelling facility with proper precautions, while others reported strong urine odors, poor housekeeping, missing or soiled bedding, and even rodent sightings and unsanitary kitchen areas. The dementia wing and some rooms/furniture/beds were repeatedly described as outdated and in need of renovation. A number of reviews also mentioned COVID-19 outbreaks and related safety concerns, which compounded fears about infection control.
Management, communication, and logistics: Communication and administrative responsiveness vary widely. Positive comments highlight informative directors of nursing and admissions staff who handled emergency placements and family communications well. Negative reports include very poor phone handling (long hold times, calls answered by aides or residents), rude or curt administrators (one reviewer named a higher-up, Susan, as being unprofessional), disorganized discharge planning, transportation failures, and inconsistent notification about visitation rules. Multiple families reported lost or stolen belongings (including clothing and jewelry), being given other patients' clothing, or loved ones being sent to funerals in inappropriate attire—events that suggest weak inventory controls and poor respect for residents’ personal property. Some reviewers perceive the facility as financially driven, suggesting differential treatment based on insurance status.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant pattern is variability: some stays are exemplary—clean, safe, with outstanding therapy and compassionate staff—while other stays are marked by neglect, unsafe staffing, clinical errors, and management failures. Recurrent issues that families should weigh heavily are chronic understaffing, medication errors, neglect of basic needs, loss/theft of belongings, and inconsistent infection control. If considering this facility, prospective families should (a) request to meet therapy and nursing leadership, (b) ask about staffing levels for the anticipated shift times (including weekends and nights), (c) visit unannounced if possible to assess cleanliness and unit staffing, (d) document medication and care plans, and (e) discuss how personal belongings are tracked and what security measures exist. The facility shows clear strengths in therapy and in the performance of many individual caregivers, but the frequency and severity of negative reports about staffing, management, and safety warrant caution and careful vetting before placement.
