Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Several reviewers describe very positive experiences — praising attentive, caring clinical staff (including nurses, doctors, physical therapists, aides, and dieticians), good food, cleanliness, and successful recoveries. At the same time, an equal or larger number of reviews allege serious problems: filthy conditions, inadequate hygiene practices, insufficient staffing, and instances of neglect with tangible clinical consequences. This results in a split picture where some residents reportedly receive good care and recover, while others suffer notable harm.
Care quality emerges as the central and most contentious theme. Positive reports emphasize compassionate, skilled clinicians and aides who provide attentive assistance, therapy, and medical oversight that led to recovery and a comfortable, pleasant stay. Conversely, a subset of reviews describe extremely poor care: residents left unassisted with eating (contributing to weight loss), dehydration, development of bed sores, multiple falls, and at least one review that referenced a patient death. These severe clinical concerns suggest episodes of neglect and insufficient monitoring for at-risk residents.
Staffing and staff behavior are another major area of divergence. Multiple reviewers report that the facility is short-staffed and that staffing shortages are especially acute on weekends. Short-staffing is linked to practical failures — residents not assisted with meals, incomplete hygiene care after meals, and delayed responses to needs. Reviewers commonly comment that while a few staff members are fantastic, many aides and some shifts are uncaring, dismissive, or simply overwhelmed. This creates inconsistency: some units or shifts are described as very clean and well-run with attentive staff, while others are characterized as terrible and neglectful.
Facility cleanliness and infection-control practices show a stark contrast across reports. Several reviewers directly call the facility filthy and cite lack of hand hygiene, absence of gloves, and residents being left dirty. Other reviewers explicitly state the facility was very clean and well-maintained. These opposing reports point to irregular standards of hygiene and environmental maintenance that vary by unit, shift, or over time. Such variability in cleanliness is particularly concerning given the clinical vulnerabilities of the population served.
Management, communication, and transparency are additional recurring concerns. Several reviews mention unresponsive or scripted management, inconsistent communication between administration and hands-on staff, and a feeling that management downplays or misrepresents conditions (including a comment about website misrepresentation). Families report difficulty getting problems addressed, and some are planning to move loved ones as a result. There are also reports of theft or missing personal items (for example, TV remotes), which compounds trust and safety worries.
Dining and therapy show mixed feedback: food is praised by multiple reviewers as very good, and successful therapy/rehabilitation (PT) and coordinated clinical teams are cited in positive accounts. However, the positive dining experience is undermined in other accounts by inadequate assistance with eating that led to weight loss for some residents. The presence of good therapists and medical staff in certain cases suggests that competent care is possible within the facility when staffing and supervision align properly.
In summary, the reviews paint a facility with highly inconsistent performance. There are clear examples of compassionate, competent care and good outcomes, but also troubling, serious allegations of neglect, poor hygiene, and unsafe conditions that have led to clinical decline for some residents. The most frequent and significant patterns are (1) variability between units and shifts, (2) staffing shortfalls affecting quality and safety, (3) inconsistent cleanliness and infection-control practices, and (4) perceived administrative unresponsiveness. For prospective families or those monitoring current residents, these reviews suggest strong due diligence: visit multiple units and shifts, speak directly with clinical staff, monitor hygiene and assistance with meals, and escalate any safety or neglect concerns promptly to management and appropriate oversight agencies.
