Overall sentiment across the provided reviews is mixed, with a clear pattern: the facility is repeatedly praised for its rehabilitative services, admissions team, and portions of the staff and physical plant, while simultaneously attracting serious complaints about inconsistent nursing care, hygiene, and administrative issues. Many families report outstanding therapy/rehab outcomes, an efficient admissions experience, and caring interactions with particular nurses and aides. At the same time, multiple reports document neglectful care episodes, medication and hydration problems, and unacceptable cleanliness in individual rooms. These contrasting themes recur often enough to suggest variability in quality depending on unit, shift, or staff assignment.
Care quality shows two dominant threads. On the positive side, numerous reviewers highlight skilled nursing and therapy services — the therapy department is described repeatedly as the best in the city, with innovative equipment (Alter G treadmill), strong outcomes for returning home, and both inpatient and outpatient capabilities. Several reviewers said nursing staff were dedicated, caring, and competent, and praised teams that went “above and beyond.” Admissions and marketing staff receive consistent high marks for being helpful, knowledgeable, and making transitions easier.
On the negative side, there are multiple serious and specific complaints about neglect and clinical lapses: dehydration requiring hospital transfer, claims that patients were not fed or hydrated despite staff statements to the contrary, medication ordering and delivery failures, poor diabetes management and inappropriate meals for diabetic patients, and documentation gaps leading families to file complaints with state authorities. Some reviewers report that management or nurses delayed or deterred hospital releases, and others described delayed diaper changes, infrequent bathing, and residents left without assistance. These reports, combined with at least one mention of a state investigation, are red flags for prospective residents who require close medical or nursing supervision.
Staff behavior and consistency is a prominent theme. Reviews alternate between praise for many warm, professional, and attentive employees and strong criticism of rude, inattentive, or unprofessional staff members. Several entries explicitly call out rude receptionists or unhelpful social workers, and some reports describe staff actions that families found distressing (e.g., calling police on visitors, aggressive behavior). The overall pattern is one of uneven staffing quality — parts of the building or specific shifts appear to provide excellent care, while other areas or times show substantial lapses.
Facility, cleanliness, and amenities are also described with mixed experiences. Multiple reviewers note that the facility is clean, smells good, and features renovated spaces, spacious rooms in the rehab wing, private phones, flat-screen TVs, and updated therapy equipment. Conversely, other reviews describe filthy rooms with dried feces and bodily fluids on surfaces, urine odors, and general poor hygiene. Some reviewers note that the back part of the building is better maintained than the front, suggesting variability in housekeeping or oversight. For many reviewers, recent new ownership and leadership were mentioned as improvements, with several posts explicitly stating the facility looks and feels fantastic under new management.
Dining and nutrition feedback is similarly bifurcated. Several families praise the dining room atmosphere and activities tied to mealtimes, while others complain about repetitive menus, small or unbalanced portions, and food that is “nasty” or inappropriate for residents with special dietary needs (notably diabetes). Significant care-related claims (residents not being fed or being left with meals) intersect with dining complaints, compounding concerns about nutrition and hydration monitoring.
Management, communication, and operations show important variances. The admissions team is repeatedly lauded for making transitions smooth and for being responsive and knowledgeable. At the same time, reviewers report uninformative office staff, mismanaged discharge planning, poor communication about appointments, and strict or inconsistent management guidelines. Several families describe a positive shift after ownership changed, but others relate ongoing problems such as understaffing, administrators perceived as unresponsive, and formal complaints to regulatory agencies.
Recommendations for prospective families based on these reviews: if rehabilitation outcomes and therapy quality are your highest priorities, the facility's therapy department and rehab wing appear to be strong assets and may make the center a very good option. However, if a prospective resident requires close, consistent nursing care (complex medical needs, diabetes management, high assistance needs), families should exercise caution: ask specifically about current staffing ratios, medication administration protocols, diabetic meal planning, recent state inspection results, and the facility’s process for communicating clinical incidents and discharge planning. During a visit, request to see both the rehab wing and typical long-term care units, speak directly with nursing leadership about recent complaints and corrective actions, and ask to review the most recent quality and inspection reports. The reviews suggest improvement under new ownership in some areas, but also reveal enough serious negative incidents that careful, targeted inquiry is warranted before making a placement decision.
