Overall sentiment from the reviews is highly mixed but leans strongly toward serious concern. A recurring and dominant theme is major variability in care and conditions: while some reviewers describe excellent, compassionate, and effective care—particularly in therapy/rehab programs and on specific units—many others report repeated, severe failures in basic cleanliness, resident hygiene, supervision, and safety. The volume and severity of negative reports (feces in bedding, soiled diapers on floors, bedbugs, persistent strong odors, and general filth) represent systemic problems that multiple reviewers observed across different time periods and units.
Care quality shows a wide spread. On the positive side, occupational/physical therapy teams receive frequent praise for being professional, patient, and effective; some named therapists and units (for example the ADM unit) and several short-stay rehab cases ended with good outcomes and timely discharges to home. Some nurses, CNAs, and staff are described as compassionate and willing to go the extra mile, and a number of families expressed gratitude for individual employees who provided attentive end-of-life or rehabilitative care. However, these positives are counterbalanced by many reports of neglect: residents left in wet or soiled clothing, not bathed for multiple days, missed or late medications, care for ADLs being overlooked, and patients left unattended after falls or transfers. There are also multiple accounts of injuries occurring during transfers and a patient reportedly losing a toe — allegations that point to potentially serious lapses in clinical practice and supervision.
Staffing and staff behavior are major and consistent concerns. Reviewers repeatedly cite severe understaffing and a corresponding slow or absent response to call bells and urgent needs. This understaffing appears to strain otherwise well‑meaning employees, producing fatigued or unengaged staff and, in many reports, rude or threatening interactions with residents or family members. Several comments point to inconsistent competence (for example, nurses unfamiliar with Hoyer lifts), lack of routine rounds or supervision, and specific nursing teams/floors that performed markedly worse than others. There are also multiple allegations of theft of residents’ belongings and valuables, and multiple reviewers said management failed to resolve complaints or take corrective action.
Facility condition, infection control, and safety issues are repeatedly described as problematic. The building is frequently characterized as old, decaying, and in need of remodeling. Reviews mention dirty bathrooms, broken beds and equipment, cluttered rooms with medical apparatus, dirty wheelchairs, and problems with common areas (carpets, elevators). Several reviewers highlighted poor infection-control practices or failure to notify families about COVID cases. Pest reports (bedbugs, gnats) and an absence of regular disinfection were also commonly noted. Transport and logistics problems were described (dirty buses without AC or proper seat belts). Taken together, these reports indicate maintenance and environmental standards that many families found unacceptable.
Dining, activities, and overall quality of life are further areas of complaint. Many reviews mention poor food quality, limited alternatives for meals, lack of snacks or nutritional supplements, and residents reporting hunger. Activities and engagement appear limited or nonexistent in several accounts, contributing to an institutional, claustrophobic atmosphere for some residents. Conversely, a smaller subset of reviewers praised meal service and social interactions, again underscoring the facility’s variability depending on unit, shift, or time.
Administration, communication, and responsiveness to complaints are additional weak points. Numerous reviewers reported poor communication from front desk staff or nursing stations that were difficult to reach by phone, door entry systems or reception left unmanned, and unhelpful or dismissive administrative responses to serious complaints. Several reviewers described discharges driven by insurance/payment issues rather than clinical readiness, or discharge without medications, which created medically precarious home transitions. Multiple reviewers urged regulatory complaints, investigations, or even temporary closure — reflecting the depth of their concerns.
In summary, the reviews depict a facility with pockets of very good clinical rehabilitation and caring staff but also widespread, serious problems in hygiene, supervision, facility maintenance, staffing, communication, and safety. The pattern is one of inconsistency: some patients received high-quality, compassionate care and successful rehab outcomes, while others experienced neglect, unsanitary conditions, missed care, and alleged theft or harm. For families considering this facility, the reviews suggest the importance of close, unit-specific inquiry: verify staffing levels, infection-control practices, linen/change protocols, fall-prevention and transfer procedures, medication administration routines, supervision during nights and weekends, and how the facility responds to complaints. The volume and severity of the negative reports in areas that directly affect resident safety and dignity (soiled bedding, delayed care, theft, and injuries) warrant caution and, if the reviews reflect current conditions, potential escalation to regulatory authorities by concerned families.
