Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed and polarized, with a substantial number of serious negative reports alongside a number of strongly positive experiences. Multiple reviewers describe significant problems with cleanliness, odor, basic upkeep, staffing reliability, medication administration, and safety. At the same time, a separate subset of reviewers praise the facility for excellent rehab/therapy, caring nursing staff, engaging activities, and good communication during certain periods (notably during COVID). The pattern indicates inconsistent performance: some residents and families received responsive, high-quality care, while others experienced neglect, unsanitary conditions, and alleged criminal behavior by staff.
Care quality and safety are the most frequent and serious themes. Several reviews allege medication neglect, including failure to administer insulin or other medications, and at least one reviewer states their loved one was hospitalized and nearly died as a result. There are multiple specific allegations that staff stole narcotics or other medications and reports of missing jewelry and other belongings. Neglect examples include residents left on the toilet for long periods, delayed transfers or slow responses from the front desk or nursing station, and a lack of bedside rails or functioning equipment—issues that create direct safety risks. These claims, combined with accusations of deliberate theft and improper handling of controlled substances, raise regulatory and safety concerns that reviewers repeatedly highlight.
Staff behavior and staffing levels are another major and polarized theme. Numerous reviewers call staff rude, unprofessional, rough with residents, or disengaged (smirking, failing to return calls, or being generally unhelpful). Others, however, single out specific nurses, CNAs, or the administrator as warm, communicative, and attentive. Understaffing is a common complaint—reviewers mention too few CNAs on duty, reliance on agency staff with variable competence, and some aides described as lazy. This variability appears to contribute directly to inconsistent care: when experienced, committed staff are present families report very good outcomes (especially for rehab), but when staff are absent, inexperienced, or disengaged, serious lapses occur.
Facility condition and environment show sharp contrast between accounts. Many reviews describe the building as dingy, dirty, and unsanitary with a pervasive urine and feces odor, broken wheelchairs and TVs, and rooms needing paint and new furnishings. Laundry and personal items reportedly get lost or packed and not returned. Other reviewers note the facility is bright, well-kept, clean, and a good fit for the rural community; events like home-cooked Christmas dinners and occasional outdoor activities or treats are mentioned positively. This split suggests that either conditions vary by unit/wing or that standards have changed over time.
Dining, activities, and quality of life are mixed. Several reviewers praised the activities program and physical therapy, calling activities "top notch" and rehab "excellent." Conversely, others report no weekend activities, no movies, poor-quality food (overcooked or undercooked), and residents unattended or screaming in halls. There are also operational complaints such as locked units with restricted visiting, lack of oversight (suggestions for cameras), and arbitrary or inconsistently enforced rules. Noise, parking shortages for visitors, and occasional disruptive events outside the facility were also noted.
Management and communication receive frequent criticism for poor oversight and responsiveness. Many reviewers describe slow or nonexistent callback practices, a lack of transparency about incidents, and a perception that owners or leadership tolerate poor behavior. Specific personnel are named in negative contexts by some reviewers (for example, a DON mentioned as untruthful), while others praise the administrator's friendliness. The recurring recommendation from reviewers is that better supervision, staffing accountability, and monitoring (e.g., cameras) are needed.
In summary, the review corpus paints a facility with sharply inconsistent performance: pockets of very good clinical and rehabilitative care and strong, compassionate staff coexist with repeated reports of unsanitary conditions, neglect, theft, medication errors, and poor management. Prospective residents and families should be aware of this variability and consider in-person visits, targeted questions about current staffing and oversight, and recent inspection records. The complaints about safety (medication errors, theft, neglect) are significant and recurring enough that they warrant careful attention by anyone evaluating the facility.
