Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed and polarized: a substantial number of reviewers strongly praise the facility’s physical environment, many individual caregivers, activities, and a subset of clinical staff, while a roughly equal or larger set of reviews document serious, recurring problems with staffing, basic personal care, clinical management, and communication. The building, grounds, and common areas are repeatedly described as beautiful, bright, well‑maintained, and odor‑free. Many families report a warm, home‑like atmosphere, strong activity programming, pet visits, chaplain or bible study opportunities, and reception and front‑desk staff who are welcoming and informative. Several reviewers specifically singled out individual employees and hospice partners as compassionate, professional, and excellent in their roles. For these families, the facility provides individualized, attentive care and a high quality of life for residents, and they explicitly recommend it.
However, a large body of reviews raises persistent and serious concerns about staffing levels and consistency of care. Numerous reports indicate chronic short‑staffing (especially nights and sometimes weekends), leading to long call‑light response times, residents left on the toilet or in soiled clothing for extended periods, infrequent showers, and beds left wet or soiled with delayed linen changes. Several reviews describe soiled diapers or briefs being disposed on trays or floors, urine‑stained clothing and sheets, and reports of plastic mattress covers left exposed. These hygiene failures are frequently linked to staffing shortages and to staff not following basic routines (turning, bathing, checking vitals), and families advise frequent in‑person checks as a result.
Clinical care and medication management also emerge as inconsistent. Many reviewers reported delayed or missing medications, medications left unattended on nightstands, long waits for pain relief or no offered PRN medications like Tylenol, and in some cases omissions of vitals and oxygen or failure to follow physician orders. Several accounts raise alarming clinical outcomes: new pressure ulcers appearing after admission, wound drainage leaks, untreated infections requiring hospitalization, and at least one reviewer alleging an aspiration death. Wound‑care supplies running out and disputes over hospice documentation and coverage were also reported. These clinical failures, when combined with administrative unresponsiveness, leave families feeling that care can be unsafe for more medically complex residents.
Communication and leadership are recurring themes in the negative reviews. Multiple reviewers state that administration is unresponsive, phone calls and messages are not returned, and the Director of Nursing or administrators are dismissive when problems are raised. In‑room phones being inactive (or requiring an extra charge to activate) and staff frequently being on personal calls or distracted by beepers contribute to families’ perceptions of poor communication and inattentiveness. Some families report escalating concerns to Adult Protective Services (APS) or the police in order to get staff to respond. Conversely, other reviewers note positive changes under new management or praise specific leaders for being helpful and improving operations, indicating inconsistency across time and leadership changes.
Staff conduct and training produce widely divergent impressions. Many reviews praise individual staff members by name for compassion and competence; others accuse staff of rude, demeaning, or abusive behavior, including rough handling, yelling, forced removal from beds, and poor bedside manner. There are reports of staff avoiding eye contact, being dismissive, or behaving unprofessionally with families. Several reviewers interpreted the behaviors as stemming from lack of training, low morale, or being overworked. Families repeatedly link poor staff behavior and neglect to inadequate staffing, training gaps, and occasional high turnover.
Dining, therapy, and activities receive mixed feedback. Numerous reviewers praise the activity calendar, resident events, and social opportunities — stating residents appear engaged and happy. Some report good therapy outcomes and effective rehab programming. At the same time, other families say rehab staff did not encourage exercise, equipment was unused, meals arrived late, food quality varied, and some residents received insufficient fluids. These mixed reports suggest variability by unit, time of day, or specific care teams.
Safety and supplies are additional concerns. Reviews include incidents of missing personal items or theft concerns, supplies running out (wound supplies, towels), and bathrooms or floors being left wet and unsafe. Several reviews describe emergency escalations (ER transfers, APS/police involvement). Families also mention incomplete admission/check‑in processes and documentation issues that can affect continuity of care. Positive reviews, however, often emphasize an organized, clean facility and attentive staff who keep the environment safe and pleasant.
In summary, the facility presents a strong physical environment and has many dedicated, caring staff and robust activity programming that lead some families to highly recommend it. Simultaneously, a significant number of reviews document troubling patterns of inconsistent clinical care, hygiene neglect, medication errors or delays, poor communication from administration, and behaviors that families consider abusive or unprofessional. The most consistent recommendation from reviewers is that families should monitor closely, visit frequently, and maintain active communication with staff and leadership. Prospective residents or families should weigh the facility’s attractive environment and strong positives against the documented risks tied largely to staffing, training, and management responsiveness, and should ask direct questions about staffing ratios, wound‑care protocols, medication administration practices, and incident reporting before admitting a loved one.
