Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed and highly polarized: several reviewers praise the direct care staff for compassion, dignity, and attention, while others raise significant concerns about administration, safety, and consistency of care. The most consistent positive theme is the quality of bedside staff — multiple summaries explicitly call out nurses and caregivers as kind, humane, loving, compassionate, and capable of producing positive outcomes and peace for residents and families. Reviewers also note that staff can be personally attentive (for example “good to my daddy”) and that some families experienced superb, around-the-clock availability from caregivers.
However, management and administrative issues are a recurring negative theme. Multiple reviewers reported payroll problems including delays and at least one allegation of unpaid shifts. There are specific complaints about failure to verify time and pay using the Shift key system, and a general claim that administration is unresponsive. One reviewer named the administrator "Misty" and questioned her motives; several comments describe the administrative team as unprofessional and lacking good communication. These issues compound family frustration because they affect both staff morale (via payroll) and families’ ability to get clear information about residents.
Safety, resident mix, and care consistency are also areas of concern. Some reviewers explicitly described the home as "unfit," mentioned "nasty staff" or "nasty residents," and used the term "drug heads," which suggests allegations of substance use among some people at the facility. Other reviewers reported care that was "severely lacking" for their parent, indicating that while some residents receive attentive care, others do not. This pattern points to uneven quality — strong, compassionate direct care from many staff members contrasted with instances of neglect or unsafe conditions that worry families.
Facility condition and environment appear mixed in the summaries: the building is described as old but certain areas were noted as clean. Reviewers did not provide details about dining or activities; there were no specific comments in these summaries about food quality, menu, recreation, or therapy programs. The absence of commentary on dining and activities in the provided summaries means no reliable conclusions can be drawn in those areas from these reviews alone.
Notable patterns and takeaways: 1) Direct caregivers are the facility’s strongest asset — families repeatedly praise nurses and aides for compassion and personal attention. 2) Administrative failures (payroll, communication, leadership concerns) are a recurring liability that impacts staff morale and family trust. 3) There is variability in care and safety perceptions — some families report positive outcomes while others report that care was inadequate or that resident behavior/safety was problematic. 4) Specific allegations of discrimination against people of color are serious and appear in the reviews; they merit further investigation by prospective families or oversight bodies. 5) Physical plant is older but can be kept clean in areas, according to some reviewers.
For someone evaluating this facility, the reviews suggest it may provide excellent hands-on care from many staff members but carries risks related to management, payroll processes, communication, and inconsistent resident/staff behavior. Prospective residents and families should meet with both administrative leadership and direct-care staff, inquire specifically about staffing consistency, payroll/time verification practices (including how Shift key records are audited), anti-discrimination policies and complaint resolution, security and behavioral management for residents, and request references from current families. If possible, visit multiple times, observe different shifts, and ask to speak with families whose relatives receive similar levels of care to the prospective resident’s needs to get a fuller picture of reliability and safety.
