Overall sentiment across reviews is highly polarized and inconsistent. A substantial number of reviewers report excellent care experiences: remodeled wings with modern amenities (pub, spa, restaurant-style dining), a strong on-site rehabilitation team, an on-site Medical Director, and compassionate individual staff members who go above and beyond. Several families explicitly praise particular employees (Courtney, Justin, Darrin, Efi and others), the activity staff, therapists, and some nursing personnel. Positive reports frequently highlight clean, updated rooms and common areas on certain floors, engaging daily activities, good meal variety and alternatives, and instances where administration or new local ownership has made visible improvements.
Contrasting sharply with the positive accounts are numerous, serious negative reports describing systemic problems. The dominant negative themes are chronic understaffing, long call-light response times, and inconsistent nursing care. Multiple reviewers describe entire shifts or floors covered by a single aide, CNAs failing to assist with trays or personal care, nurses showing favoritism, and long waits for basic needs like water, ice, medication, and toileting assistance. Several reviews allege medical neglect with concrete examples: medication denied or delayed (including pain meds), Foley/urine output not monitored, an instance of a 4000 ml bladder drainage, delayed treatment after falls resulting in hip fractures and, in one account, death. These more severe clinical failures have led some reviewers to advise that the facility be avoided for post-operative or high-acuity patients and to report involvement of licensing boards and insurers.
Management, administration, and policy concerns appear repeatedly. Reported problems include abrupt leadership turnover (director quitting), dismissive responses from charge nurses or ADONs, disrespectful scheduling behavior, alleged erasure or blocking of negative online comments, billing harassment and threats, and threats of eviction or forced moves to long-term care. Families report poor communication about incidents, missing or never-received bills followed by aggressive collections or police involvement, and inconsistencies in enforcement of policies. These administrative failures exacerbate families' distrust and contribute to highly variable experiences depending on which staff, floor, or shift a resident encounters.
Facility condition and cleanliness are another bifurcated theme. Some reviewers describe spotless rooms, newly remodeled sections, and attractive amenities (pub, spa, new bathing areas). Others report severely unsanitary conditions: mold, roof leaks and flooding, bed bugs, fruit flies and other flies in dining areas and on residents, urine odors, dried feces on floors, nonfunctional elevators, and unsafe environmental hazards. Reviews often indicate that the positive physical attributes are limited to renovated areas while other wings or floors remain neglected, which corresponds to the pattern of inconsistent care quality across the building.
Dining, activities, and social programming show similar split patterns. Many reviewers praise varied menus, restaurant-style dining, snacks, and robust activities (daily exercise, Bingo, social tea/coffee, special events, veterans programs). Conversely, others report awful or cold food, dietary restrictions ignored (critical for post-surgical patients), lack of assistance with meals, and a cessation of group activities or closure of the restaurant during COVID that led to residents effectively isolated in rooms. Families frequently note that weekday staffing and services are markedly better than weekends, suggesting that scheduling and staffing patterns drive variability in resident experience.
Safety and infection control concerns are raised repeatedly. Reports of positive COVID cases, residents locked in rooms, showers denied, and poor supervision of dementia patients raise red flags. Several reviewers cite falls and many falls occurring while staff coverage is low. Combined with examples of neglected incontinence care and poor monitoring of urinary output, these accounts suggest lapses in basic clinical oversight and risk management for vulnerable residents.
A clear pattern emerges: the facility appears to deliver excellent care in specific units, under certain staff or new management, and for residents whose needs align with the strengths (rehab, therapy, upgraded rooms). At the same time, there are consistent, corroborated claims of severe understaffing, inconsistent management, clinical neglect, cleanliness issues, billing/administrative misconduct, and unsafe conditions in other units or on certain shifts (often weekends). The result is profound inconsistency — some families would highly recommend the facility, while many others urge avoidance and recount trajectories of harm.
Recommendations for prospective families or oversight entities based on these reviews: verify current ownership and management stability; tour the specific unit/floor where a loved one would be placed (including evenings/weekends); ask for staffing ratios by shift, recent inspection reports, and infection-control/fall-history data; inquire about medication administration policies and physician coverage (in-person vs virtual); request documentation of dining accommodations for special medical diets; ask how billing is handled and how incidents and family complaints are communicated and resolved. Given the gravity of some allegations (medical neglect, billing harassment, infestation, and unsafe conditions), families should consider corroborating claims with state inspection reports and recent complaint histories before placement, and should avoid placing post-operative or high-acuity patients there until consistent improvements are demonstrable.
