Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized but leans negative: a recurring pattern shows pockets of very good clinical and rehabilitative care surrounded by systemic problems with basic daily care, cleanliness, staffing, and communication. Many reviewers praise the therapy (physical therapy/rehab) and activities teams, and several individual nurses, CNAs, and admission staff receive strong, specific praise. At the same time, a substantial number of reviews allege neglect, unprofessional behavior, and unsafe conditions that repeatedly surface in independent accounts.
Care quality and responsiveness: A dominant theme is inconsistent and often poor execution of essential nursing care. Multiple reviewers report long delays answering call bells (from 30–40 minutes up to several hours), residents left sitting in soiled briefs, minimal or infrequent bathing (for example, one bath in two weeks), and long waits for toileting assistance. Medication administration problems are mentioned — delayed pain medications and medication misdocumentation — and delayed medical testing (UTI testing) is also cited. Several reviewers describe critical safety events (falls under facility care, a severe heel wound leading to gangrene), which heightens concerns about supervision, assessment, and clinical follow-up.
Staff behavior, compassion, and consistency: Reports show a split between genuinely compassionate, skilled staff and caregivers described as rude, uncaring, or punitive. Specific staff members and teams are praised (therapy, certain nurses, CNAs, and admission personnel such as Alexis Cassell), and families describe smooth transitions and respectful care from these individuals. However, a large number of reviews describe CNAs and nurses who are inattentive, chat in hallways instead of answering calls, make disparaging remarks, refuse reasonable requests, or otherwise behave unprofessionally. Several reviewers cite poor phone etiquette, ignored POA instructions, and hostile interactions with supervisors or social workers. This inconsistency suggests variability by unit, shift, or individual staff member rather than a uniformly positive or negative culture.
Cleanliness, environment, and equipment: Many reviews raise hygiene and environment concerns: dirty floors, spider webs, dust bunnies, scraped and dented walls, holes in walls, overflowing trash, and smells of urine. Specific allegations include trays left in rooms at late hours, linens left on the floor, or bed linens not being changed. Some families report rooms and common areas that are clean, orderly, and pleasant, indicating uneven housekeeping performance across the facility. Equipment and safety complaints include outdated beds without rails, narrow/uncomfortable beds, missing mobility aids (wheelchairs/walkers), and absence of simple infection-control measures (no hand-sanitizer stations in rooms according to some reviewers).
Dining and nutrition: A frequent complaint is insufficient or poor-quality meals. Multiple reviewers describe half trays, missed meals, low-protein options, dry or cold food, and low-calorie or unsatisfying portions. Specific examples include an Italian sub on a dry roll with minimal toppings, use of sugar instead of artificial sweetener, and meals described as sparse (three slices of lunch meat and a single mayo packet). Other reviews counter that the food is decent or average, and that staff attention during feeding is good in some cases. The pattern again suggests inconsistency and possible effects of staffing shortages or kitchen practices.
Administration, communication, and policy issues: Families report poor and inconsistent communication from management and social work, delays in admission coordination, concerns about insurance coverage, and occasional punitive or dismissive responses to complaints. A few reviews mention police involvement stemming from disputes and at least one claim that the facility was shut down or not in operation. There are also reports of belongings mishandled, lost, left in hallways for months, or stolen — raising serious questions about property management and incident reporting.
Positive pockets and recommendations: The most consistent positives are the therapy/rehab department and activity staff, along with particular nurses/CNAs and admissions staff who receive high praise for compassion and professionalism. Several reviewers explicitly recommend the facility for skilled rehabilitation because of good PT outcomes and engaged activities. These positive accounts often come with qualifiers: they usually reference specific halls, shifts, or individuals, and are contrasted with reports of severe lapses elsewhere.
Patterns and takeaways: The reviews indicate significant variability in resident experience that appears to depend heavily on unit, staff on duty, and possibly time. Recurrent issues—call-bell response delays, hygiene lapses, underfeeding, and poor communication—are frequent and serious when they occur. Conversely, therapy and some caregiving staff are repeatedly highlighted as strengths. For prospective residents and families, these patterns suggest the facility may provide excellent rehabilitative care in some contexts but also carries notable risks for neglectful basic nursing care and cleanliness problems. Recommended actions before placing a loved one would be: visit the specific unit and room in person, meet nursing leadership and therapy staff, ask for staffing ratios and call-bell response policies, check cleanliness and infection-control practices, verify meal plans and portioning, confirm how belongings and property are handled, and get references about recent experiences on the same unit and shift. The variability in reviews means local, up-to-date observation and direct questions to management are essential.
