Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized: there are numerous, strongly negative reports alleging neglect, unsafe clinical practices, infection and hospitalization, theft of personal items, pest problems, and poor facility maintenance, but there are also many positive reports praising individual staff members, cleanliness in parts of the building, good food, active programming, and improvements under new management. The negative reports are frequent and severe in some cases (hospitalizations, sepsis, amputation, alleged death), while positive reports emphasize caring staff, effective communication by specific nurses or admissions personnel, and an Alzheimer's locked unit that some families found appropriate and safe.
Care quality and clinical safety are among the most prominent and concerning themes. Multiple reviewers allege missed or incorrect medications, untreated urinary tract infections, delayed medical attention duringCOVID, and even care lapses that resulted in hospitalization and serious outcomes. There are specific claims of misdiagnosis (illness labeled as allergies), oxygen management problems (refusal to provide more than 3 liters despite need), failure to follow doctors' orders, and lack of appropriate fall-prevention measures such as bed rails for at-risk patients. Conversely, other reviewers describe attentive nursing teams who provide daily updates to families and one-on-one attention; this suggests substantial variability in clinical performance that may depend on shift, unit, or recent staffing/management changes.
Staff behavior and staffing levels are a second major theme. Many reviews report rude, unprofessional, or indifferent staff—CNAs and nurses alike—and describe long wait times for assistance, redirection between staff members, and CNAs who appear overworked. There are also allegations of staff theft (snacks and personal items) and favoritism toward nurses over CNAs, contributing to poor morale. Offsetting this, numerous reviews specifically praise individual employees and groups (including named staff), describe long-tenured, knowledgeable nurses, and credit some staff for compassionate care and good communication. Several reviewers note recent leadership changes (new director of nursing, new kitchen manager, new management) and say these changes have led to measurable improvements.
Facility condition, cleanliness, and maintenance are highly mixed. Multiple reviewers describe pungent odors, urine smells, roach infestations, peeling paint, chipped wallpaper, broken TVs and toilets, and even reports of no running water in some rooms or shared toilets—serious environmental and infection-control concerns. At the same time, other reviewers call the facility very clean, well-lit, welcoming, and beautiful. This contrast could indicate that conditions vary widely by unit, building section, or over time; it may also reflect differing standards among reviewers. Some positive reviews explicitly note absence of pests and no urine smell, which further highlights the inconsistency.
Dining, activities, and the rehabilitation/memory-care experience are also inconsistent. Several reviewers praise the food (hot, tastes good) and note robust activity programming and engaged residents, while others complain of cold meals, kitchen issues, and poor dining experiences. The rehab side receives repeated criticism ("not recommended" in a number of reviews), whereas the Alzheimer's locked unit is recommended by some as an appropriate fit. Memory care is also described as understaffed in some negative reviews. Reports of water tasting odd (carbonated), inconsistent visitation policies, and bans on previously allowed window visits during COVID were additional sources of family frustration.
Administration, communication, and corporate behavior receive frequent negative mention. Reviewers describe disorganized administration, lack of communication with families, unreturned calls, and defensive or rude leadership (with calls for removal of administrators and directors of nursing). Several reviewers complained that corporate responses were defensive, and some said social media questions were deleted. Conversely, other reviewers praise administrative personnel and HR as helpful, noting they received timely updates and answers to questions—again indicating variability in leadership performance or possibly differences between corporate and local staff behavior.
Patterns and takeaways: the reviews show a clear divide—some residents and families report excellent, compassionate care and a clean, pleasant environment, while many others report serious safety and quality issues including medication errors, infection, neglect, theft, pest problems, and unacceptable facility conditions. The frequency and severity of the negative reports, especially those describing clinical harm and lack of timely medical attention, are notable and warrant careful attention. Positive mentions of recent management changes and named staff who perform well suggest that quality may be improving in some areas, but the inconsistency across reports is a persistent theme.
For prospective residents and families: consider an in-person visit to multiple units (including the rehabilitation and memory-care areas) and ask specific, recent questions about staffing ratios, infection-control practices, pest control measures, oxygen and medication policies, fall-prevention protocols, and recent adverse events. Request to speak with unit-level nursing leadership and the admissions director, ask for recent inspection/complaint history and corrective-action documentation, and verify whether the "improvements under new management" reported by some reviewers are documented and sustained. Given the mix of serious negative allegations alongside strongly positive personal experiences, decisions should be based on direct observation, up-to-date inspection records, and verification of staffing and clinical safeguards rather than on aggregate review scores alone.
