Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans positive in areas of clinical care, therapy, cleanliness, and support services, while raising serious concerns about family interactions, access, and some aspects of personnel conduct. Multiple reviewers emphasize strong, compassionate care from front‑line clinical staff — admissions, social services, nurses, and CNAs — and single out the Director of Nursing for active involvement in residents' care. The therapy program receives particularly high praise: a knowledgeable therapist named Kevin and the broader therapy team are credited with clear exercise instruction, personalized attention, and a focus on safe, speedy recovery. Several reviewers describe the therapy staff as creating a personal connection and fostering a sense of being at home, which suggests rehabilitation services are a consistent strength of the facility.
Facility upkeep and support services are another clear positive theme. Reviewers repeatedly note the facility is very clean and calm; housekeeping is praised specifically for eliminating odors, with Reniyah mentioned by name. Laundry services are also commended (Suzanne). Dining and dietary services receive favorable comments: reviewers mention quality nutrition, good meal service, and an attentive dietary manager and crew, indicating that foodservice is organized and supportive of resident satisfaction.
Staffing and individual employees attract both praise and criticism. On the positive side, many staff members are described as welcoming, helpful, friendly, and hard‑working. Specific employees (Miranda Wright, LVN) are lauded for going above and beyond in patient care, and reviewers highlight a compassionate culture among many caregivers. At the administrative level, admissions and social services are noted for excellent interactions, suggesting the intake and care coordination experience is generally strong.
However, there are distinct and serious negative reports that contrast with the positive themes. One cluster of reviews alleges disrespectful behavior by nursing staff toward families, including hanging up on calls and discriminatory treatment of certain family members. More severe accusations include restricted access to a patient, inadequate feeding of a resident, alleged neglect, and statements that staff lied to police. These are significant concerns that point to possible communication breakdowns, boundary/conflict issues, or isolated incidents of poor care or policy enforcement. Another recurrent negative theme relates to human resources and workplace culture: reviewers describe HR staff as having a bad attitude, poor customer service, and label the facility “not a good place to work,” which could have implications for staff morale and turnover.
Taken together, the reviews depict a facility with many strong operational and clinical elements — notably therapy, direct caregiving, cleanliness, and food services — alongside troubling reports about family relations, access, and possible neglect. The volume and specificity of praise for therapy, housekeeping, and named staff suggest those strengths are consistent and notable. The negative reports, while fewer in number, are serious and concern interpersonal conduct and patient safety. For a prospective resident, family member, or regulator, it would be prudent to weigh the demonstrated clinical and environmental strengths against the reported interpersonal and access problems. Follow‑up actions could include asking facility leadership about visitation policies, family communication protocols, staffing and training related to feeding and mealtime assistance, how complaints are investigated (including any involving police), and what steps HR and management take to address employee concerns and maintain a respectful environment for families.
