Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed: multiple reviewers give very high praise for the staff, their compassion, and the ways the facility keeps residents engaged, while other reviewers describe severe problems with hygiene, safety, and management that they view as grounds for shutting the facility down. This split suggests inconsistent quality of care and experience that may vary by timeframe, shift, unit, or management state.
Staff quality is the most frequently praised element. Numerous reviews call staff attentive, caring, professional, and trustworthy; family members report supportive transitions with frequent communication (phone calls, videos, photos) that reassured them. Individual staff members receive personal thanks (one reviewer names "Marie" as always willing to help). Reviewers highlight creative caregivers, accommodating attitudes, and a motivating, friendly atmosphere. Multiple reviewers explicitly state they highly recommend the facility or call it a "great place for elderly," noting residents are often smiling and kept busy.
Conversely, several reviews raise very serious care and safety concerns. Multiple accounts describe severe hygiene failures (feces in bed, pervasive urine/defecation odors, and a general strong odor) which are acute red flags for infection control and basic caregiving. There are reports of significant medical incidents, including falls that resulted in head injuries and residents being unable to walk. Those safety incidents are compounded by perceptions that staff were indifferent or nonchalant during or after the events. Other safety-related complaints point to missing personal belongings and external safety concerns immediately outside the facility (panhandling and a perception of danger). One or more reviewers explicitly mention DSS involvement and go so far as to recommend avoiding the facility or calling for it to be shut down.
Facility condition and organization receive conflicting reports. Some families describe the facility as clean and well-run with monthly resident parties and a lively activity schedule; others report disorganization such as scheduling appointments with staff who no longer work there, and erratic staffing that likely contributes to inconsistent care. Several comments about a new administrator or being under new management indicate there has been recent leadership change — some reviewers view this as positive, while negative reviews imply lingering operational problems and staff turnover.
The reviews also contain troubling social issues: at least one reviewer reports racially charged language, and others note panhandling near the entrance — both raise concerns about resident dignity and security. COVID-related stress is mentioned as a complicating factor in at least one review, which may have affected communication, staffing, or procedures during that period.
Taken together, the patterns suggest three likely realities: (1) many direct-care staff members are skilled, caring, and committed and create positive experiences for residents and families; (2) there are episodic but very serious lapses in hygiene, safety, and organization that have led to traumatic experiences for some residents and families; and (3) variability over time or across shifts/units is probable, possibly tied to staffing turnover and management transition. For prospective residents or families, these reviews recommend caution: visit multiple times (including evenings/weekends), speak directly with current families, ask for incident logs and staffing ratios, verify how the facility handles falls and incontinence care, and inquire about recent regulatory or DSS actions. The mixed nature of the feedback means prospective decision-makers should weigh the strong positive reports about staff and activities against the documented severe negative incidents and make choices based on direct observation and specific, verifiable answers from the facility.
