Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed, with clusters of strong positive experiences coexisting alongside serious negative reports. Many reviewers praise day-to-day caregivers — nurses, aides, and certain staff members are repeatedly described as kind, compassionate, and willing to go out of their way. Several accounts highlight meaningful, family-centered moments such as compassionate end-of-life care, provision of private space during final hours, thoughtful cleaning after a death, arranged special visits (e.g., birthdays), and staff ensuring residents receive meals and social engagement. Rehabilitation and social programming also receive positive mention: activities are described as cheerful and engaging, transportation for medical appointments is available, and some residents enjoy palatable meals and comfortable communal spaces.
However, that positive thread is offset by numerous, concrete operational and safety concerns from other reviewers. Multiple complaints describe rooms that were dirty, with pests such as ants or bugs, and episodic strong urine odor. Several reviewers reported inadequate clinical care: wound checks being missed, poor wound care management, and instances of patient deterioration that family members felt were not properly addressed. A particularly serious cluster of comments alleges failures in COVID-19 infection control — reviewers mention lack of masks, poor precautions, videos/pictures as evidence, and at least one reported resident death attributed to COVID. OSHA citations and explicit references to COVID violations appear in the summaries, indicating regulatory action or formal concerns.
Staff behavior and leadership are another major theme of division. Many families praise individual caregivers as warm, helpful, and attentive, but other accounts describe rude, snubbing, or unprofessional staff, supervisors, and administrators. Specific names (e.g., a supervisor Lakisha and an administrator Tom) were mentioned in negative contexts as being indifferent or unhelpful. Reviewers also note yelling by staff, emotional scenes in hallways, and notes on doors that raise privacy/HIPAA issues. Frequent staff turnover, lack of interdepartmental communication, chaotic operations, and misinformation to residents and families are repeatedly cited as contributing to inconsistent care quality and family frustration.
Communication and accountability problems are prominent and often tie into safety and satisfaction concerns. Reports of missed notifications, lack of contact from social workers, poor handoffs between departments, and apparent confusion about care plans suggest systemic coordination issues. Several families felt forced to remove loved ones after short stays due to perceived neglect or unsafe conditions, while others expressed deep trust and steady satisfaction with the care provided. This suggests significant variability by unit, shift, or timeframe — positive experiences and lapses in care appear to coexist within the same facility.
Taken together, the reviews depict a facility that can provide excellent, compassionate care in many cases — especially when staffed by engaged caregivers — but that also exhibits recurring operational weaknesses that have led to serious concerns for some residents and families. The most urgent issues reported are infection control lapses, inconsistent clinical monitoring (wounds, deterioration), cleanliness/pest problems, and leadership/communication breakdowns. Prospective residents and families should weigh these polarized reports carefully: ask for recent regulatory reports, infection control policies and citations, staffing patterns and turnover statistics, how wound and infection care is monitored, and how communication is handled between teams and with families. Visiting multiple times across different shifts and speaking directly with current residents, frontline staff, and the social worker or administrator may help identify whether the positive practices or the negative patterns are predominant at the time of placement.
