Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but polarized: many families and residents report excellent, compassionate clinical and rehabilitative care, while a substantial number of reports describe serious lapses in safety, communication, and management accountability. Positive reviews frequently cite a committed, professional care team, successful medical outcomes (including notable recovery from a Stage 4 wound), attentive aides, effective rehabilitation services, and a clean, pleasant facility with engaging activities. Specific staff members and functions—such as admissions staff (Andrea), a social worker named Preya, and the rehab/respiratory teams—are singled out for exceptional, above-and-beyond service, contributing strongly to peace of mind for many families.
However, negative reports are frequent and sometimes severe. Key recurring problems include inconsistent communication from nursing and medical staff, delays in follow-up by nurse practitioners or doctors, and evident staff turnover that appears to contribute to variable care quality. Multiple reviews describe failures in basic nursing care and responsiveness: delayed pain medication, long waits for bedpans, delayed medication administration, and instances where call buttons were inaccessible or ignored. There are several concerning safety-related accounts: a resident left overnight without checks or water, a call button that fell under a bed and went unanswered, and at least one report of a procedure (over-suction) causing tracheal trauma and bleeding. These incidents point to potential systemic issues with monitoring, training, and escalation.
Facility maintenance and housekeeping are mostly praised but not uniformly so. Many reviewers describe the facility as immaculate, with clean bathrooms and dining areas, while specific reports note troubling sanitation problems (black mold found in a fridge the prior year, soiled bed noted in another complaint). Maintenance issues such as missing shower heads, fridges without lights, lukewarm bottled water, and rooms that became uncomfortably hot were also reported. Dining is another mixed area—some reviewers rave about excellent food and timely service, while others report late meals, missing snacks, and at least one meal described as low quality.
Management, accountability, and regulatory issues appear as a major theme in the negative reviews. Multiple reviewers report poor billing practices, problems with checks, no front desk coverage on weekends, and perceived suppression of complaints. Some accounts describe an unprofessional or defensive management attitude, discouraging residents and families from speaking up. There are explicit mentions of formal complaints and state investigations that found violations, and at least one review alleges that a resident was being forced out. Such administrative and regulatory concerns amplify clinical and safety complaints, since they suggest systemic rather than isolated problems.
Taken together, the pattern is one of substantial variability: the facility clearly provides high-quality, compassionate care for many residents—especially in rehabilitation and certain care teams—while also exhibiting troubling, occasionally serious failures for others. For prospective residents or families, these reviews recommend a cautious, inquiry-driven approach: tour the facility, meet specific staff (nurses, social worker, admissions personnel), ask about weekend coverage, staffing ratios, medication administration policies, incident reporting and escalation procedures, recent state inspection or complaint outcomes, and how the facility handles billing. If current family involvement and oversight are important, ask how staff interact with families and how concerns are documented and resolved. The coexistence of both excellent and deeply concerning reports indicates that experiences at this facility may depend heavily on timing, unit staffing, and specific teams on duty, making due diligence and direct observation especially important.
