Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers report significant improvements after a management change and praise compassionate, dedicated staff, while other reviewers describe serious care, safety and administrative failures. Positive accounts emphasize a warm, home-like atmosphere, helpful and attentive caregivers (especially on night shifts), responsive executive leadership, clean conditions, meaningful activities, and even a successful state re-survey with zero deficiencies. Those reviewers who describe an improved environment highlight visible management involvement, strong teamwork, good hospice coordination, and regular family communication that produced measurable improvements in resident wellbeing.
Conversely, a cluster of deeply concerning complaints describes systemic problems prior to — and in some reports, persisting despite — leadership turnover. These reports include allegations of neglect (weight loss, bedsores, open wounds, rashes), severe cleanliness problems (dried feces on floors, soiled bedside areas), missing personal possessions including dentures and clothing, and environmental hazards (broken sliding bathroom door, unlevel floors, outside grounds poorly maintained). Several reviewers reported staff unprofessionalism, including sleeping on night shift, alleged substance use, and staff instructed to remain silent about problems. There are also multiple claims that management blamed residents or lied about missing items, which compounds family distrust.
Staffing and clinical care emerge as a recurring theme. Many reviewers note reliance on temporary agency staff and travel nurses, with associated concerns about continuity of care and clinical competence; one thread also details unpaid travel and lodging reimbursements and long-delayed invoices, suggesting financial stress and reputational risk. Medication management and documentation inconsistencies are reported repeatedly: missing or inconsistent medication dosing, failure to document food and fluid intake, unclear ED prescription processes, and care plans not being updated or followed. These clinical documentation gaps are linked in reviews to missed medical appointments, poor oversight, and increased risk for adverse outcomes.
Safety and security concerns are prominent: reports of resident-to-resident assaults, unsecured or unsafe physical conditions, and allegations that staff asked families or residents to keep quiet point to both operational and cultural issues. Some reviewers also cited regulatory involvement — including an HHS investigation and mentions of potential shutdown — highlighting the seriousness of certain complaints. Dining and nutrition received mixed feedback: while some families appreciate attentive monitoring, other reviewers described low-quality meals (ham sandwiches, hot dogs), missing protein supplements, and inadequate nourishment contributing to weight loss.
On the positive side, multiple reviewers specifically call out a turnaround after a change in leadership (noted as occurring in late 2024 in some summaries). These accounts credit new management and an engaged executive director with restoring standards, improving cleanliness, re-establishing effective staff teamwork, and increasing family communication. Activities and social programming (sing-alongs, holiday dinners, games) are consistently mentioned in positive reviews as contributing to resident quality of life. Several families explicitly recommend the facility following observed improvements.
Patterns to note for prospective families or oversight parties: praise tends to cluster around periods when stable, engaged leadership and consistent staffing are present; the most severe criticisms correlate with times of management instability, heavy reliance on temporary staff, or alleged financial/administrative dysfunction. Specific red flags in the negative reports include unresolved hygiene and wound-care issues, lost or missing resident possessions (including dental appliances), inconsistent medication administration, and documented regulatory scrutiny. Conversely, the clearest indicators of quality in the positive reviews are consistent leadership visibility, good communication with families, documented survey success, clean facilities, and staff who go "above and beyond."
Recommendation: anyone evaluating this facility should seek up-to-date evidence of current management stability, staffing mix (percent permanent vs agency staff), recent state inspection results, documented corrective actions for prior deficiencies, and clear policies on resident belongings, medication administration, and incident reporting. Families should also ask for specifics about nutrition/protein supplements, wound care protocols, transportation/appointment coordination, and financial practices related to third-party staff reimbursements to confirm the positive trends described in some reviews are sustained and that the serious concerns reported have been fully addressed.
