Overall sentiment across these review summaries is heavily mixed but leans strongly negative. While a handful of reviewers praised specific staff members (notably some techs and supervisors), 24/7 support, and reported that some residents are happy, the majority of comments raise serious concerns about care quality, safety, facility condition, and management priorities. The positive remarks appear isolated and often contrast sharply with frequent, severe complaints.
Care quality emerges as a central and recurring issue. Multiple reviews allege poor care, neglect, and incidents serious enough to cause multiple hospitalizations. There are explicit reports of a living environment described as a "living hell for the elderly," with reviewers describing bedbug infestations and even blood-stained sheets — both very serious red flags for infection control, sanitation, and resident safety. Although one or two reviewers said the building was kept clean, the presence of pest reports and stained bedding indicates inconsistent or ineffective housekeeping and clinical oversight in multiple accounts.
Staff behavior and competence are another dominant theme. Many reviewers describe staff as unprofessional, rude, and incompetent, with specific complaints of staff yelling at residents and failing to actively listen. There are reports that staff members blend in with residents (suggesting poor role boundaries), and that staff are unhelpful with relaying messages or locating residents — implying weak communication protocols and supervision. At the same time, some reviewers singled out caring techs and supervisors who provide good support; this suggests a split experience where a subset of personnel perform well but systemic issues persist that undermine overall care.
Facility condition and safety concerns are emphasized repeatedly. Reviewers describe an older building that is not well maintained, overcrowded rooms, and residents who are hard to locate, which together raise questions about supervision, staffing ratios, and physical infrastructure. The reference to "violence on TV" and a general atmosphere where people "sit around watching TV" as the main activity points to a low-stimulation environment and potential exposure to inappropriate content. Several reviewers went so far as to suggest closure of the facility, indicating that some complaints are severe enough to warrant external intervention in their view.
Activities, engagement, and quality of life indicators are largely negative in these summaries. There are multiple mentions of no outside activities, lack of organized programming, and residents spending their days passively watching television. This lack of meaningful engagement can contribute to decline in resident well-being and is consistent with the complaints about disengaged staff and poor supervision.
Management, communication, and value considerations also appear frequently. Reviewers accused the facility of being money-driven and overpriced for the care delivered, stating it provides poor value. Communication failures—staff not relaying messages and difficulty finding residents—point to systemic administrative problems. While a minority of reviews praise certain managers or supervisors, the overall pattern suggests inconsistent leadership and execution.
In summary, these reviews portray a facility with serious, recurring problems in sanitation, safety, staffing competence, and programming, punctuated by a few positive experiences with individual caregivers. The mix of bedbug reports, blood-stained bedding, alleged hospitalizations, and calls for closure are particularly concerning and suggest issues that warrant immediate attention from regulators or oversight bodies. If considering Tabor Manor, prospective residents and families should investigate current infection-control measures, staffing ratios and training, supervision practices, activity programming, and read recent inspection reports. The few positive comments about caring techs and 24/7 support indicate some strengths, but the volume and severity of negative reports indicate systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.
