Overall sentiment in the collected reviews is mixed but leans toward concern. Multiple reviewers praise individual staff members and specific positive experiences—comments include a clean environment, pockets of compassionate and skilled nursing care, a helpful case worker, and a team that supported an effective transition to home hospice. Some families specifically call out “phenomenal” staff, dependable team members, kind and sweet interactions, and the presence of higher-level staff. The facility does offer on-site rehab services and reviewers note Medicare coverage for up to 100 days, which may be helpful for short-term stays.
However, the dominant themes are communication failures, inconsistent care quality, and worries about clinical oversight. Several reviews describe unresponsive front desk staff, doctors who do not return calls, and miscommunication about patients’ health status. These communication breakdowns are not isolated to administrative matters; they appear to affect clinical outcomes for some patients—one reviewer reported their loved one subsequently spent time in the ICU, and another noted rough handling by a tech. Reported medication issues (excessive drowsiness) also interfered with the ability to participate in rehabilitation, leading at least one reviewer to conclude the facility was not suitable as a rehab-focused placement.
Care consistency is a major pattern: while some families had excellent experiences with attentive staff, others describe poor overall care, mixed staff quality, and behaviors suggesting inadequate training or supervision (for example, rough handling). Meals are called out as poor in multiple summaries, and the physical setup (two-per-room layout) raises privacy and comfort considerations. Cost and value are recurring concerns—several reviewers called the facility expensive and questioned pricing relative to the quality and outcomes experienced.
Administrative and reputational issues compound the clinical and operational problems. Aside from descriptions of unresponsiveness and communication issues, reviewers express concerns about the trustworthiness of the online ratings themselves—allegations of inauthentic reviews, ratings manipulation, and fake ratings appear in the summaries. These claims suggest potential difficulties for prospective residents and families trying to evaluate the facility using public review sources.
In summary, prospective residents and families should expect a facility with some clear strengths in individual staff members and case management support, and useful practical aspects such as Medicare-covered short stays and on-site rehab services. At the same time, there are consistent reports of serious weaknesses: poor and inconsistent communication, variable clinical care that in some cases led to severe consequences, concerns about medication management interfering with rehab, complaints about food and privacy, and questions about cost-effectiveness. The presence of claims about manipulated reviews further means extra caution is warranted: verify recent, specific references (ask for recent family contacts, inspect rooms, observe staff interactions, request detailed care plans and medicine management protocols) before making placement decisions.
