Overall sentiment is highly mixed but leans negative, with numerous and recurring concerns about staffing, safety, and basic care quality juxtaposed against repeated praise for many frontline caregivers and therapy staff. A substantial number of reviewers describe serious lapses in basic nursing care — long waits for call lights, residents left in urine or feces, wet or unrefreshed bedding, delayed wound and diabetes management, and medication errors. These problems are frequently attributed to chronic understaffing and high patient-to-staff ratios; reviewers repeatedly connect slow response times and missed care to insufficient numbers of CNAs and nurses on the floor.
At the same time, there is a consistent vein of positive commentary focused on CNAs, aides, and therapy staff. Many families specifically single out CNAs as kind, attentive, and instrumental in residents' recovery. Physical and occupational therapy receive strong positive remarks in multiple reviews where patients regained function and returned home. Several reviewers describe rehabilitation-focused care as effective, noting frequent therapy sessions and tangible recovery gains. That contrast — dedicated frontline caregivers providing good hands-on care while systemic problems erode reliability and safety — is one of the clearest patterns across the dataset.
Facility and maintenance issues are another dominant theme. Multiple reviewers report broken equipment (beds, toilets, TVs), brown water in sinks, ants and general pest problems, and a run-down, dilapidated physical environment. Maintenance responsiveness is described as inconsistent; in some accounts a maintenance worker was present but distracted or socializing rather than addressing urgent repairs. There are also concrete safety concerns cited: blocked fire doors, emergency exits left open, and reports of unsafe clinical practices (for example, thermometer use described as unsafe). These physical and environmental problems amplify clinical risks when combined with understaffing and delayed responses.
Food and activities receive mixed but mostly negative feedback. Many reviewers describe meals as unappealing, with limited options, poor presentation (meat looks unappealing), lack of fresh fruit, and occasional allergen or dietary errors. A smaller number praise the dining experience and report weight gain or satisfaction, highlighting the polarized nature of opinions. Activities are characterized as limited by some and adequate by others; a few reviewers praise specific staff in activities (named positively) and note holiday events, while others say residents have minimal engagement.
Clinical safety and quality concerns are repeatedly and specifically described: medication errors (including stopping medication without a doctor’s order), dropped pills not retrieved, dangerous delays in treating hypoglycemia (reports of very low blood sugars left unattended), inadequate wound care or wet bandages left unchanged, bruising from improper transfers, stockings not reapplied after care, and frequent falls. Several reviewers recount extreme allegations of neglect or abuse, including being left exposed to elements, being 'dumped' on doorsteps, or being neglected until hospitalization for dehydration or sepsis. These reports raise serious liability and regulatory concerns and explain why some reviewers urge avoidance of the facility.
Management, communication, and HR issues appear as recurring systemic problems. Families describe administration and the director of nursing as unresponsive or slow to address complaints; social worker communication is labeled unhelpful in places. Some reviews allege unfair employee treatment, wrongful termination, and denial of FMLA/ADA accommodations, suggesting internal culture and HR problems that may affect staff morale and retention. Several reviewers also question the validity of some positive online ratings and suspect biased or fake employee reviews, adding to concerns about transparency.
There are intermittent reports of recent improvement and leadership attempting to make positive changes. A few reviewers describe tours noting recent improvements, managers and individuals (e.g., an administrator named Don) making helpful changes, and staff pride in their work. These comments suggest that quality may be variable over time and that targeted leadership interventions could be producing localized gains, particularly in therapy and frontline caregiving.
In summary, the dominant narrative is inconsistent care quality with serious and frequent reports of understaffing-driven neglect, safety hazards, and maintenance problems, counterbalanced by many specific accounts of compassionate and effective CNAs and therapists. Families considering this facility should weigh the risk of systemic issues — slow responses, hygiene lapses, clinical safety incidents, and administrative unresponsiveness — against the potential for strong one-on-one care from certain staff and effective rehabilitation services for some patients. The pattern suggests significant variability day-to-day and staff-to-staff; prospective residents and families would be well advised to conduct an in-person tour focused on staffing levels, response times, cleanliness, equipment condition, and to ask for recent incident and staffing data, while also seeking names of reliable caregivers and therapy staff when making placement decisions.
