Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed but leans negative due to frequent and recurring reports of neglect, unsanitary conditions, safety incidents, and administrative failures. While multiple reviewers single out specific employees and departments for excellent care—particularly some nurses, aides, admissions and finance staff, and the rehabilitation/PT team—an equal or greater number of reviews describe systemic problems that affect resident safety, dignity, and basic comfort.
Care quality and staff behavior: Reviews describe a stark polarization. Many families praise individual caregivers as compassionate, professional, and attentive—sometimes going above and beyond to make residents comfortable, deliver quality end-of-life care, or produce strong rehab outcomes. However, numerous other reviews report neglectful practices: missed health checks, long waits for assistance, soiled linens, and alleged nurse negligence. Call bell systems reportedly do not work reliably, which compounds delays in care. Several accounts allege serious incidents including possible medication overdoses, an attack with delayed staff intervention, and ER admissions attributed to neglect. The pattern suggests inconsistent staffing levels and performance: when adequate, trained staff are present, residents may thrive; when they are not, residents suffer notable harm.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and maintenance: A dominant theme is deterioration of the physical environment. Reviewers repeatedly mention old, filthy furniture, soiled carpets, and bathrooms described as disgusting or 'horror-movie-like.' Specific pest complaints include roaches and black bugs in showers. Odors of urine in hallways and overall unsanitary conditions are reported frequently, raising infection risk concerns. Maintenance problems are numerous and practical: elevators that seldom work, broken TVs, malfunctioning heating/air conditioning and ventilation issues, and general neglect of building upkeep. Several reviewers call for major renovation or a gut renovation, and note that condition has worsened over time despite name changes.
Safety, theft, and regulatory issues: Safety concerns extend beyond cleanliness. Multiple reports allege theft of money, clothing, jewelry, and even larger-scale alleged misappropriation of funds. There are mentions of state health department fines and citations, which strengthen the credibility of regulatory concerns. Some reviewers characterize the facility as exploiting Medicare/Medicaid payments, labeling it a 'cash cow.' These allegations, combined with reports of unprofessional behavior, delayed responses to assaults, and possible medication errors, portray a facility with systemic risk factors for resident harm.
Management, communication, and administration: Many reviewers describe administration as unresponsive, hard to reach, and dismissive of family concerns. Promised fixes and follow-ups reportedly go unfulfilled, and some families felt 'ghosted' after raising issues. Frequent name and ownership changes are called out as red flags; several reviewers report that every name change was followed by no substantive improvement. On the positive side, a few named administrative staff (Beth, Debbie, Avril) receive praise for helpfulness during admissions or billing, indicating some competent individuals within the structure. Still, the overall pattern is one of inconsistent leadership and poor accountability.
Dining, activities, and therapy: Accounts about meals and activities are mixed. Some reviewers praise the food as delicious and abundant and mention fun activities that contribute to resident well-being. Conversely, multiple complaints call the food horrible and part of the broader neglect theme. Rehabilitation and physical therapy receive consistent positive mentions from families who experienced good progress; several reviewers explicitly praise therapy staff as exceptional and timely. This indicates that clinical rehabilitation programs may be a relative strength compared with basic custodial care and housekeeping in some cases.
Notable patterns and red flags: Recurrent issues include persistent cleanliness failures (pests, soiled linens, odors), maintenance breakdowns (elevators, HVAC, TVs), theft and financial irregularities, state-level fines, and poor management responsiveness. At the same time, there are pockets of excellent care—individual caregivers, therapy programs, and some administrative helpers—suggesting high variability across shifts, units, or time. The repeated mention of name changes and comparisons to prior operators (e.g., Golden Living Center) is an additional red flag cited by several families.
Conclusion and practical implications: The reviews portray a facility with serious, recurring problems that have compromised safety, hygiene, and family trust—yet also show that caring, skilled staff exist and can make a positive difference for some residents. For families considering this facility, the most prudent approach based on the reviews would be to conduct careful, up-to-date vetting: visit multiple times across different shifts, ask directly about recent state inspection reports and citations, verify staffing ratios and turnover, check how the facility secures residents' belongings and medications, and request evidence of corrective actions for past deficiencies. If a resident is already in the building, families should monitor care closely, secure valuables, document incidents, and escalate concerns to state surveyors if problems persist.
In short, the reviews present a dual reality: individual staff members and therapy services can provide excellent care, but systemic failures in management, maintenance, cleanliness, and safety have produced many serious complaints. These patterns warrant caution and thorough due diligence before entrusting a loved one to this facility.
