Overall sentiment across these reviews is highly mixed and polarized. Many reviewers emphasize strong, compassionate frontline staff — CNAs, therapists, and some nurses receive repeated praise for warmth, dedication, and professionalism. The rehabilitation department is a clear strength in multiple accounts, described as friendly, professional, thorough, and focused on recovery. Several reviewers reported a clean, homelike atmosphere and positive interactions with administrators and select leadership members. Food receives generally favorable comments for portion size and acceptability, though some describe the menu as bland. During COVID restrictions, the facility provided virtual visiting options (FaceTime) which some families appreciated.
Counterbalancing the positive comments are frequent, serious complaints about staffing levels and care reliability. Understaffing emerges as a central theme tied to many negative outcomes: long waits for assistance, lack of bathing or basic hygiene, inadequate feeding help, and residents being left unattended. These staffing issues are linked in some reviews to missed medications and missed IV antibiotic doses — mistakes reported to have led to worsening wounds, decubitus ulcers, osteomyelitis, and hospital readmissions. Several reviewers reported that medications given were not communicated to families, or that discharge instructions and injection guidance were not provided, resulting in dangerous delays in home health setup.
Communication problems recur throughout the summaries. Families describe office personnel who were untruthful or evasive, staff who hung up on callers, and inconsistent responsiveness to phone calls. Some reviewers specifically say staff did not listen to residents or loved ones and treated them without dignity. At the same time, other reviews highlight an "excellent administrator" and compassionate leadership, indicating significant variability in management performance or differences in individual experiences. This inconsistency suggests that care quality can depend heavily on which staff or shift is involved.
Safety and facility concerns are also notable. Multiple accounts reference poor hygiene in particular situations (unbathed residents, towels not provided, food returned or left on the floor) as well as an unpleasant smell in at least one review. There are at least one report of an initially assigned room lacking a bathroom, though that resident was later moved to a bathroom-equipped room. COVID-era confinement reduced activities for some residents, which families found challenging despite virtual options. Several reviewers felt the facility operated in a profit-driven manner and relied on family involvement to ensure adequate care, indicating perceived systemic issues rather than isolated staff lapses.
Patterns in these reviews point to two consistent takeaways: 1) the rehabilitation and therapy services are frequently a strong point and may suit patients whose primary need is post-acute therapy; and 2) nursing and custodial reliability appear inconsistent, with understaffing and communication failures producing real safety risks for some residents. The facility environment is often described positively (clean, homelike, caring staff), yet there are enough reports of neglect, missed medications, and poorer hygiene to warrant caution.
In summary, prospective residents and families should weigh the strong rehab capabilities and many reports of compassionate staff against recurring reports of understaffing, missed medical care, communication breakdowns, and occasional serious adverse outcomes. If considering this facility, it would be important to ask specific, concrete questions about nursing staffing ratios, medication administration processes, wound care protocols, discharge coordination with home health, and how the facility addresses lapses in care. The reviews indicate that experiences here can vary widely — for some the care and administration are exemplary, for others the experience was neglectful and unsafe.
