Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized: a significant number of reviewers report compassionate, dedicated staff, good therapy and activities, and a pleasant, affordable facility; at the same time a substantial number of reviews describe serious care, cleanliness, medication, and safety problems. This split creates an inconsistent picture in which residents and families may have either a very positive or a very negative experience depending on timing, staffing, and which personnel are on duty.
Care quality is the most frequently debated area. Positive accounts emphasize attentive CNAs, hospice nurses, and several standout nurses who provided thorough, compassionate care, timely medication administration, and effective therapy that supported recovery. Conversely, numerous reviews describe neglectful practices — residents left on bedpans for extended periods (reported up to 15 minutes), no showers for two weeks, beds not changed, delayed or missed medications (including delayed seizure medication), wounds left untreated, and reports of infections including suspected MRSA and recurring UTIs. A few reviewers said a formal complaint was required before improvements were made. One review included a claim that a physician placed the facility on a Do Not Admit list, suggesting at least one strong external professional concern.
Staffing and staff behavior show clear variability. Many reviews single out individual caregivers, CNAs, and nurses as compassionate, hardworking, and supportive; some name specific employees positively (Bianca Pina, Lisa Perkins, Michael). Multiple reviewers praise management and leadership for being supportive, resident-focused, and for providing staff resources. At the same time, staffing shortages and overwork are recurrent themes — including an alarming report of one nurse covering 45 patients — and weekend or temporary staff are repeatedly called out as lower-quality, snippy, or unavailable by phone. There are also reports of rude or abusive staff behavior (for example, an aide yelling at a resident about shaking), CNAs seen watching TV while on duty, and inconsistent enforcement of standards.
Facility, cleanliness, and infection control are another set of mixed findings. Several reviewers describe the facility as warm, home-like, attractive, and well-laid-out with great activity rooms and clean spaces. Other reviewers report serious sanitation problems: filthy bedding, dirty pillows with discharge, a fruit fly infestation, and general unclean rooms. Some reviews say cleanliness improved only after a complaint. Aging-building issues such as roof leakage and unused resources (an unused bus) were also mentioned, contributing to a sense that some infrastructure and maintenance needs are unmet.
Dining, activities, and therapy receive both praise and criticism. Many reviewers commented positively on meals, social activities, music, TV, games, and robust PT/OT programming that aided recovery. Several testimonials emphasize excellent food and active programming. In contrast, other reviewers describe chaotic mealtimes, poor food management (running out of main entrees and substituting peanut butter and jelly), and meals that were incorrect or unappetizing. Rehab and therapy are praised when available, but a number of reviewers stated therapy was inconsistent or absent.
Safety, oversight, and administration show conflicting reports. Some families report proactive, resident-focused leadership and management that models good care and supports staff. Others highlight poor oversight: alleged lack of physician visits, medication given without approval, poor admission/security processes, and statements that the facility felt like a state institution with limited resources. A few reviewers explicitly advise relying on word-of-mouth rather than public rating sites and warn strongly against placing loved ones at this facility based on their negative experiences.
Patterns and implications: The recurring pattern is one of inconsistency. Positive experiences tend to emphasize specific compassionate staff, active therapy programs, good leadership, and a pleasing physical environment. Negative experiences concentrate on systemic issues — understaffing, weekend/agency staff variability, lapses in basic hygiene and infection control, medication mistakes or delays, and occasional abusive interactions. Because reviews indicate that care level may change substantially depending on staff on duty and that complaints sometimes spur improvements, prospective residents and families should do in-person visits multiple times (including weekends and evenings), ask specific questions about staffing ratios and weekend coverage, request recent infection-control records, and verify medication and physician oversight procedures. Checking up-to-date inspection reports and seeking recent firsthand word-of-mouth from current families can help reconcile the wide variance in reported experiences.
