Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but leans toward serious concern, with a large cluster of strong negative reports about care quality, cleanliness, communication, and management alongside a smaller but distinct set of positive comments about individual staff members, meals, and the work environment for some employees.
Care quality and resident treatment are central themes. Multiple reviews allege poor care, neglect, and mistreatment, including refusals to assist residents with restroom needs and accusations that residents were ignored or not listened to. There are several direct statements of residents being unhappy and of staff unresponsiveness. Conversely, some reviewers describe staff who were attentive, kind, and provided good individualized care. This creates an overall picture of inconsistent care — some residents experience respectful, attentive caregiving while others report neglect or mistreatment.
Staff professionalism and culture show a clear divide. Numerous reviewers call out rude, unfriendly, or unprofessional nursing staff and demand friendlier nurses, while other comments describe the workplace as excellent and staff who love the residents and their jobs. Some staff are praised as hardworking and committed, producing 'happy faces' and a positive environment; others are described as lazy, failing to follow daily routines. This variability suggests inconsistent staffing performance, training, or supervision.
Facility cleanliness and safety are frequent concerns. Several reviews describe filthy rooms, sticky floors, debris, and disturbing observations such as pee buckets from other patients and used medical items (alcohol wipes, gauze packages) left where they shouldn’t be. One review specifically flagged the PT (physical therapy) room for cleanliness issues needing thorough cleaning. These reports raise both comfort and infection-control concerns and were strong enough in at least one case that the reviewer said they would report the facility.
Communication and responsiveness are repeatedly criticized. A common complaint is that phone calls are never answered and staff are unresponsive, leading to frustration and a perception of poor accountability. This ties into reports about management problems — several reviewers explicitly mention terrible management, a lack of accountability, and even a named director (Jennifer) alleged to be uncaring. Specific incidents such as a resident’s plant going missing and a loved one being moved twice (ignoring sentimental value) were cited as examples of administrative neglect.
Health-safety practices and pandemic-related compliance are also flagged. Reviews include allegations that COVID guidelines were not followed and that staff were forced to work while sick, a serious concern for resident safety and infection control. Combined with the reported cleanliness and contamination issues, these comments represent significant risk areas.
Dining and some aspects of care receive positive mention. Homemade-quality meals and a few accounts of excellent care stand out amid the negative feedback, indicating that certain services and staff members are performing well. Additionally, some employees describe a very positive work environment and a sense of purpose, which suggests strengths the facility could build on.
In summary, the reviews point to a facility with notable inconsistencies: pockets of genuine, caring staff and good services (particularly meals and some individualized care) exist alongside recurring and serious complaints about cleanliness, communication, staff professionalism, management accountability, and infection-control practices. The most pressing themes are safety and cleanliness issues, unresponsiveness/communication failures, and uneven staff performance. Any evaluation of the facility should weigh these conflicting reports carefully and prioritize verification of the safety/cleanliness and management concerns raised in multiple reviews.
