Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed, with a clear split between strong praise for individual staff members and serious concerns about the physical plant, safety, and clinical reliability. A number of reviewers emphatically commend the staff: several individuals are singled out by name (Jen, Tom, Laura) and described as hands-on, proactive, and caring. Multiple reviewers describe the staff as friendly, patient-centered, and responsive in routine caregiving, and a few explicitly recommend the facility. The facility's COVID protocols were noted positively, and some families appreciated the small, single-story, country setting with a pleasant back-porch area and limited resident capacity — characteristics that can be attractive to families seeking a quieter, more intimate environment.
However, these positive impressions are counterbalanced by repeated and serious criticisms. Cleanliness and maintenance are a dominant negative theme: reviews cite dirty floors, spider webs and spider eggs in rooms, generally filthy conditions, and outdated rooms and dining areas. Several reviewers use strong language about the facility being "out-of-date" or "horrible," indicating perceived underinvestment. This physical decline appears to feed into concerns about value, with reviewers feeling the high fees are not justified by the state of the building and amenities.
More alarming are the clinical and safety-related complaints. Multiple reviewers allege medication management problems, including missing medications, ignored medication refusals, and behavior that reviewers interpreted as attempts to cover up these incidents. There are specific, serious allegations of neglectful care — including claims that a resident was almost comatose and that another was at risk of starvation — along with reports of unsafe practices like smoking near oxygen. Safety concerns also extend to resident mix and supervision: at least one reviewer noted unease about the presence and behavior of male residents with mental-health issues and a lack of appropriate safeguards for residents with dementia. These reports suggest inconsistent clinical oversight and raise red flags about reliability of care in some cases.
Management and staff performance appear inconsistent across shifts and personnel. While some staff members receive glowing praise and are described as going above and beyond, other reviews complain about unprofessional behavior, poor responsiveness, missing personal belongings, and a lack of proactive follow-through. Activity programming is described inconsistently: some reviewers observed activities, while others reported that activities were not being done. Dining opinions are similarly mixed — some found the dining area acceptable, others described the food as "horrible" and the dining spaces as out-of-date.
Patterns in these reviews point to a facility with strong individual caregivers but systemic issues in facilities management, cleanliness, and clinical governance. The positive reports about named staff and COVID protocols indicate pockets of good practice and committed employees. But the repeated, specific allegations of medication errors, neglect, unsafe behaviors, and poor sanitation are significant and recurring enough to warrant caution. For prospective residents and families, it would be prudent to verify current conditions in person, ask for documentation on medication management and incident reporting, and seek references about recent management changes or remediation efforts before making decisions. The facility's small size and hands-on administrators are strengths, but only if coupled with reliable cleanliness, clear safety policies, and consistent clinical oversight.
