Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly negative, with a number of recurring and serious concerns about clinical care, safety, staffing, and management practices. While reviewers acknowledge a small number of compassionate caregivers and some positive interactions with administrative staff, the dominant themes are neglect, clinical deterioration of residents, preventable infections, and a perception that the facility is understaffed and mismanaged.
Care quality and clinical outcomes are the most frequently cited problems. Multiple reviewers describe inadequate or absent rehabilitation services, misrepresentation of physician or bed‑rest orders, and active clinical decline while in the facility (including reduced mobility). Reviewers report serious clinical complications that they associate with care at the facility: development of pressure ulcers (decubitus), aspiration pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and MRSA infections. Several reviews mention ambulance transfers and one notes a resident death shortly after admission. There are also claims that devices or interventions were handled improperly, resulting in physical harm (for example, a pulled device causing a cut). Taken together, these comments paint a pattern of inconsistent clinical oversight and outcomes that reviewers view as unacceptable.
Staffing, staff behavior, and safety are other persistent themes. Many reviewers describe chronic understaffing and say that only a few staff members provide acceptable care; others are characterized as uncaring or negligent. Specific incidents include a night aide refusing to provide water to a resident and allegations of abuse and unsafe handling. There are also multiple comments about gender sensitivity: several reviewers expressed discomfort or objection to male staff (CNAs, mammographers, sonographers) performing intimate procedures, suggesting the facility may not be adequately accommodating resident preferences or cultural/sensitivity concerns. Overall, reviewers feel safety and basic care needs are not consistently prioritized.
Management, communication, and advocacy receive critical attention. Reviewers accuse the facility of dishonesty or misrepresenting services (including what appears on the homepage) and describe management as money-driven. Several complain that the patient advocate role does not function in the residents' interest, and that staff do not properly advocate for resident needs. There is also a perception of inconsistent messaging—where caregivers and management may describe conditions differently than patients or families experience—contributing to distrust.
Dining and functional care concerns appear in several reviews: for example, residents being forced onto pureed diets despite the ability to chew, which families link to declines in strength and mobility. This, combined with reports of inadequate rehabilitation and mobility decline, suggests functional care plans may be inappropriate or poorly implemented.
In balance, while a few reviewers praised administrative staff and some compassionate caregivers, the aggregated reviews raise substantial red flags about clinical quality, infection control, safety, staffing levels, management transparency, and respect for resident preferences. The most urgent and recurring problems are preventable clinical complications (pressure wounds, aspiration, infections), alleged neglect and abuse, chronic understaffing, and what reviewers describe as misleading communication from management. Prospective residents and families should exercise caution: verify clinical staffing and infection‑control protocols, ask for documentation of rehabilitation plans and outcomes, inquire about policies for resident preferences (including gender sensitivity during intimate care), and seek clear, evidenced assurances that basic needs and safety are reliably met before admission.
