Overall sentiment across these reviews is strongly mixed and highly polarized: a significant portion of reviewers praise the therapy team and individual frontline caregivers, while a substantial number report serious, recurring problems with hygiene, safety, billing, and management. Several reviewers report excellent rehab outcomes, noting outstanding physical and occupational therapy, motivational staff, and measurable improvements in mobility. These positive reports often include comments that therapists are encouraging, professional, and that the facility was the best among multiple options for the resident's recovery. Multiple family members said residents made great progress and would recommend the therapy services; some reviewers explicitly stated they would return or that the staff felt like family.
However, the negative reports are frequent, grave, and recurring across many categories. There are multiple allegations of financial misconduct and confusion: reviewers mention misleading UnitedHealthcare approval claims, overbilling, unexpected charges, destroyed medicines with incorrect charges, and serious accusations including stolen Social Security checks and unauthorized direct deposits to the facility. Several reviews describe reductions in SSI or issues with food stamp denial tied to the stay, and families report being questioned or harassed about bills. These financial and transparency concerns appear to be a major and repeated theme.
Care quality and hygiene are another major area of concern for many reviewers. Numerous accounts describe residents left unclean, sitting in dirty clothes or soiled diapers, feces found in closets, dirty sheets, wet beds, blood on floors, and reports of roach or fly infestations and mold in bathrooms. Some reviewers describe being unable to trust the facility for basic nursing care (e.g., missed breathing treatments or no nurse visits), and other reports cite medication errors. Several families reported unresponsive call buttons, patients waiting to be changed, and CNAs or nurses not present enough in halls. These comments collectively suggest inconsistent standards of personal care and facility cleanliness across different stays or units.
Safety and clinical management concerns recur, especially for residents with dementia or complex medical needs. Reviews allege inadequate supervision for wandering residents, safety risks from doors left open or patients allowed to wander, loud and intrusive alarms, and overcrowded rooms that compromise privacy and clinical care. A few reviewers worried that staff did not properly manage or monitor ventilated or Bi‑PAP patients, and some said they pulled a loved one out because they could not trust necessary medical treatment would be provided. Communication breakdowns amplify these safety concerns: families report ignored calls, poor responsiveness to the VA medical team, and generally being left out of care decisions.
Dining and daily life receive mixed assessments but trend negative on food quality and logistics. Multiple reviewers complain about cold, overcooked, or poor-textured meals (oatmeal described as paste or gritty powdered eggs), meals left outside the door, and meal services that do not match posted menus. At least one reviewer referenced dining access problems tied to facility layout (e.g., lunchroom across an open court). Conversely, other reviewers praise an active activities schedule (bingo, games, live music, piano) and describe the dining room and social programming as bright spots.
Staff behavior and culture are portrayed inconsistently: many reviewers praise compassionate CNAs, nurses, therapists, and long-tenured staff who are described as kind, attentive, hardworking, and professional. Other reviewers describe rude, unprofessional, or even discriminatory staff, reports of management avoiding or not addressing concerns, and anecdotes about minors or unqualified people assisting with resident hygiene. Some reviewers describe a positive, family-like atmosphere and recommend the facility, while others feel staff ignored family input or were unhelpful, even harassing them over billing.
Facility condition and amenities also draw mixed feedback. Some families describe a clean, fresh, well-set facility with good amenities, while others report overcrowded, tiny rooms, shared rooms with curtains only between beds, mold, insects, and misleading photos. A few reviewers note a secure and safe unit for certain residents, but the presence of both positive and highly negative cleanliness and maintenance reports suggests inconsistent facility standards across units or shifts.
Management, transparency, and policy enforcement emerge as recurring themes of concern. Reviewers repeatedly mention difficulty getting clear management or ownership information, poor responsiveness from administrators, and inconsistent enforcement of COVID protocols and visitation policies. Several accounts describe denied or limited visitation for disabled family members and staff indifference toward vaccinations, which compounded dissatisfaction. There are also repeated complaints of inaccurate marketing or misleading representations (photos, promises about insurance coverage), fueling distrust.
In summary, the reviews present a facility with notable strengths in therapy and several dedicated frontline staff members who produce excellent rehab outcomes and compassionate care for many residents. At the same time, there are numerous and serious allegations around hygiene, safety, billing/financial practices, communication, and inconsistent staff professionalism. The pattern suggests variability in experience that may depend on unit, shift, specific staff members, or management responsiveness. Prospective residents and families should weigh the documented therapy strengths and reports of caring staff against the repeated cleanliness, safety, and financial concerns; when possible, they should seek direct clarification from management about billing practices, supervision of dementia residents, staffing ratios, infection control and cleaning protocols, and visit the specific unit and room they would occupy to evaluate condition and staffing in person.
