Overall sentiment is mixed and highly polarized: several reviewers report professional, compassionate, and attentive care while others describe significant lapses in safety, communication, and basic care. Positive comments focus on individual staff members who are kind, accommodating, and emotionally supportive; these reviewers note clean, homey rooms, active social offerings like a puzzle table and group activities, hospice support when needed, and instances where staff went above and beyond to help residents. Those reviewers expressed clear satisfaction, gratitude, and happiness with care received.
However, an equal or larger cluster of concerns points to systemic issues. Multiple reports indicate serious care failures: residents falling several times, insufficient assistance to the bathroom, and a lack of physical therapy. Reviewers specifically mention inadequate staff presence, which appears tied to both safety problems and limited availability of activities. These safety and care-delivery issues are among the most concerning and recur across several summaries.
Communication and management practices are another prominent negative theme. Several reviewers describe poor communication about lab results, medications, and blood sugar levels; others reported that personal supplies and medications were kept by the facility after discharge with no explanation. This combination of poor information sharing and retention of personal items is a notable pattern that raises concerns about discharge procedures, medication management, and transparency.
Facility conditions show variability: some residents found rooms clean and comfortably decorated, while others reported dirty rooms, mold in a drink, overcrowded rooms, and a horrible mattress. These conflicting reports suggest inconsistent housekeeping and maintenance standards between rooms or shifts. The presence of hospice support and active group activities for some residents indicates the facility can provide a supportive environment, but the reports of limited activities from other reviewers suggest that program availability may be uneven or dependent on staffing.
Staff behavior is described on both ends of the spectrum. Positive summaries emphasize staff availability, accommodating attitudes, and emotional support. Negative summaries describe rude staff and lack of responsiveness. This contrast may point to variability in individual caregiver performance or fluctuating staffing levels that affect service quality.
Areas with consistently negative mentions that warrant attention include resident safety (falls and toileting assistance), reliable staffing levels, communication about clinical information (labs, medications, blood sugar), and facility cleanliness/maintenance. Positive strengths include compassionate staff members when present, instances of professional care, social activities for residents, and available hospice support. Overall, the reviews depict a facility capable of providing very good, even exemplary, care in some cases, but also capable of significant lapses that compromise safety and trust. The pattern suggests uneven performance — potentially shift- or staff-dependent — rather than uniformly high or low quality across all aspects of care.
Note on missing information: reviewers do not provide detailed comments about dining beyond activities and room conditions, so conclusions about food service cannot be drawn from these summaries. For prospective families, the reviews suggest validating current staffing levels, asking specifically about toileting and fall-prevention protocols, medication and discharge procedures, housecleaning/maintenance routines, and the consistency of activity programming before placement.
