Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed, with a clear pattern of polarized experiences: many families report excellent, compassionate care and a robust rehabilitation and activities program, while a substantial number of reviewers describe serious lapses in staffing, communication, and basic day-to-day care. Positive accounts emphasize caring, attentive staff, meaningful social programming, and noticeable clinical improvements for residents; negative accounts describe neglect, unresponsiveness, and administrative problems that materially affected resident safety and family trust.
Care quality and clinical services: Several reviewers praised the medical and rehab teams, noting strong rehabilitation results, effective wound/protection measures when provided, and timely medication administration. These positive clinical reports frequently coincide with mentions of Medicare-covered rehab and a capable charge nurse who enforces accountability. However, other reviews report inconsistent clinical care—some CNAs and nurses provided good care while others were inattentive, lazy, or lacked urgency. Specific clinical concerns include poor catheter care, missed hygiene tasks, soaked bedding, missed breakfasts, and insufficient rehabilitation for some residents. The contrast suggests variability by shift, unit, or staff assignment rather than a uniform standard of care.
Staffing, behavior, and culture: A dominant theme is staff variability. Numerous reviewers singled out individual employees for praise (Bailee, resourceful Activity Director, supportive nurses), describing them as respectful, kind, and helpful. Conversely, multiple reviews name rude or dismissive staff (including a nurse named Tamecia in one account), staff who laugh or gossip at the nurses' station, and caregivers who use personal devices during visiting hours. Understaffing—particularly on weekends—and frequent administrator/staff turnover were repeatedly mentioned and appear correlated with many of the negative experiences. Several families also described poor call-light responsiveness (delays of several minutes or longer), missed care tasks like baths, and general inattentiveness during periods of low staffing.
Safety and communication: There are notable and serious safety and communication complaints. One reviewer reported a safety lapse in which a resident left the facility and attempted to cross a busy street; others described not being notified promptly about hospital discharges or physician contact being delayed. Communication and coordination with families also appear inconsistent: reviewers described late physician contact, lack of follow-up, difficulty obtaining refunds or billing explanations, and an unresponsive administrator (Mr. Keith cited). Some reports allege financial mishandling (confiscated social security check, bounced life insurance premium), and several families reported disputes over charges and refunds. These administrative and communication failures contributed substantially to the distrust expressed by negative reviewers.
Facility, cleanliness, and environment: Many reviewers reported a clean, homey environment with no foul odors, neat common areas, and a safe atmosphere. Amenities such as an in-house beauty salon, dining room events, piano entertainment, and excursions were highlighted as strong positives. At the same time, other reviewers described poor housekeeping, foul smells, and even a roach sighting—again pointing to inconsistent standards. Multiple reviewers noted older rooms and suggested security and facility improvements in some areas.
Activities and social life: A strong, recurring positive theme is the activity program. Families described frequent, engaging events (bingo, ice cream socials, painting classes, mass), responsive activity staff, outings for appointments and social events, and an overall positive effect on resident mood and engagement. This programming appears to be a consistent strength that many families credit with improving their loved ones' quality of life.
Management and operations: Several reviewers tied many negative experiences to recent operational changes: the facility was recently purchased after being family-owned, there have been frequent administrator and staff changes, and some reviewers observed a lack of visible leadership—especially on weekends. These operational disruptions appear to have contributed to inconsistent staffing, declining service in some cases, and poorer communication. Multiple reports urged oversight or complaint to authorities (Health & Human Services) and expressed hope that administrative stability could improve care quality.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The dominant pattern is variability—some residents thrive here with excellent rehab outcomes, attentive nurses, and vibrant activities; others experience neglect, poor communication, and administrative or financial problems. If you are evaluating this facility, prioritize direct questions about current leadership stability, staffing ratios (especially on weekends), handling of personal items and finances, call-light response times, and specific protocols for supervision and hospital transitions. Ask to meet the charge nurse and activity director, request references from recent families, and visit at different times of day to observe staffing and culture. The facility has clear strengths that benefit many residents, but the number and seriousness of negative reports indicate operational inconsistencies that should be carefully vetted before placement.
