Overall sentiment in the provided reviews is mixed but leans strongly negative. Multiple reviews raise serious concerns about care quality, management, safety, and operations; however, a minority of reviewers describe the facility and some staff positively (noting good food, a pleasant facility, and that it was suitable for an elderly father). The pattern suggests either variability in experience across time/shifts/units or a divergence of opinion between individual staff members and systemic issues.
Care quality and resident safety are recurring themes among the negative reviews. Several reviewers allege that people are in staff positions without the appropriate education or qualifications, and at least one review explicitly calls the administrator "useless." More alarming are claims that the facility "closing doors against resident choice," which implies restricted resident movement or locked doors contrary to resident wishes. There are also reports of pest problems (gnats) described as being under equipment attached to residents' skin — a specific and troubling infection-control or hygiene complaint. The presence of the health department noted by reviewers indicates regulatory attention or inspections, though the reviews do not provide details of findings. Together, these items point to potential lapses in clinical oversight, infection control, and resident rights.
Staffing, communication, and management are another cluster of concerns. Many reviews mention terrible or inadequate staffing, promises of improvements that were not carried out, and poor phone responsiveness. Communication failures recur (poor overall communication and rude HR staff), which compounds family frustration when trying to get information or resolve problems. Several reviewers explicitly call for the state to shut the facility down and reference a name change; others describe the place as "sad" or advise it was "awful" under a new owner. Financial/administrative concerns are also raised: one review claims the facility retained money after closure, and reviewers point to ownership instability (company ownership and subsequent new owner) as a source of problems. These financial and ownership complaints heighten concerns about reliability and ethical operations.
Facilities and dining descriptions are mixed. Some reviewers praise the facility's appearance and the meals, calling food "good," while other reviewers directly state meals were "awful." This split suggests inconsistent dining quality or differing expectations among reviewers. One or more reviews complimented specific staff as "fantastic," indicating there are individual employees who provide good care or service despite systemic problems. However, isolated positive experiences do not outweigh the number and severity of negative reports, especially those related to safety and governance.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility with serious and repeated complaints around staffing qualifications, administrative leadership, resident safety (including locked doors and pest issues), financial/ownership instability, and broken promises for improvement. While there are isolated positive comments about staff, food, and the building itself, the most salient and repeated themes are negative and raise red flags. For anyone considering this facility, the reviews suggest exercising caution: verify licensure and health-department inspection records, ask for documentation about staffing levels and staff credentials, get clarity on ownership and financial policies (including what happens in a closure), request references from current families, and do an in-person visit focusing on cleanliness, pest control, staff behavior, and communication responsiveness. The mixed reports mean experiences may vary, but the frequency and seriousness of the negative comments warrant careful due diligence.
