Overall sentiment is highly polarized, with multiple reviews praising individual staff members and programs while an overlapping set of reviews raises serious safety, hygiene, and administrative concerns. Many families specifically highlight compassionate, attentive caregivers, an engaged activities program, and a social worker (Kim) and a few named staff (for example, Tiffany) who provided excellent support, clear explanations, and effective transitional planning. At the same time, a large number of reviewers describe systemic problems — including severe cleanliness issues, understaffing, medication and wound-care errors, and alleged financial or property concerns — that, according to reviewers, put residents at risk.
Care quality and safety are a central pattern in the negative reviews. Numerous reviewers report medication mistakes, failure to follow dressing-change orders, lack of supplies for wound and IV care, untreated bedsores, and unsafe practices that allegedly led to falls or to residents being placed on thin plastic mats. Several reviewers describe gross hygiene lapses — persistent urine odors, bedpans left under chairs for days, residents rarely showered, and in some reports patients observed on stretchers or unconscious — all of which indicate lapses in basic nursing care. Positive reports about nursing and rehab exist as well, with families praising attentive nurses, helpful PT, and successful recoveries; however, the conflicting descriptions suggest inconsistent standards and highly variable experiences depending on staff on duty or specific units.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication are another frequent theme. Many reviewers praise specific staff and describe compassionate, communicative caregivers who involve families and provide clear discharge/transitional support. Conversely, other reviews describe long wait times for call buttons (reports of one-hour responses), unresponsive or dismissive staff, removal of call buttons, and management that is either unsupportive or uninformed. Miscommunication and withheld or delayed records are repeatedly mentioned; reviewers cite lies, delays, and withheld information that caused emotional distress and impeded care coordination. This inconsistency points to uneven training, supervision, or staffing levels that affect resident experience from shift to shift.
Facility condition, maintenance, and infection control emerge repeatedly as concerns. Several reviews describe the building as dilapidated, run-down, and outdated, with broken toilets, sticky floors, and pest problems including bed bugs. These issues are mentioned alongside statements that marketing photos were misleading. Where staff and activities are praised, reviewers still often state that the physical environment needs upgrades and funding. For families weighing care quality versus facility condition, these recurring sanitation and maintenance complaints are salient and potentially tied to other reported health and safety issues.
Administration, trust, and financial matters are additional high-risk topics in the reviews. Some reviewers accuse the facility of attempting to move residents under questionable circumstances, urging families to “drain bank accounts,” or otherwise pressuring for financial changes — wording that reflects severe distrust. Reports of property theft or mistreatment of residents' belongings also appear multiple times. While these are allegations from reviewers rather than independently verified facts, their recurrence is troubling and contributes to an overall perception by some families that oversight and accountability are lacking.
Dining, activities, and social aspects show more consistently positive feedback. Several reviewers detail well-run events (carnival-type activities, face painting, balloon designs) and staff who engage residents socially, helping with morale and family satisfaction. Salon services and visible activity programming were noted positively. Food and menu complaints were less frequent but present (insufficient food supply, menu not followed), indicating that dining quality may also be inconsistent.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility with a strong core of caring and dedicated front-line staff and some effective social work and activity programming, but with significant and recurring concerns about hygiene, safety, staffing levels, administration, and facility condition. The variability in experiences is striking: some families report excellent, compassionate care and successful transitions, while others report neglectful, unsafe practices and possible financial or property misconduct.
For prospective families or advocates, the pattern suggests careful, targeted due diligence: visit multiple times across different shifts, inspect cleanliness and infection-control practices, ask for documentation of wound care and medication administration protocols, confirm staffing ratios and call-button response policies, verify how belongings and finances are protected, and request references from recent families. Also ask about the specific staff praised in reviews (e.g., the social worker named Kim) and whether the same staffing and supervisory practices are in place on the unit where your loved one would reside. The mixed review profile indicates that resident experience may depend heavily on which staff are on duty and how well management enforces consistent standards of care and facility maintenance.
