Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but weighted toward positive experiences with direct caregiving. Multiple reviewers emphasize that caregivers are caring, compassionate, and available when needed — phrases such as "lifesavers," "peace of mind," and "well taken care of" recur. Several family members single out staff members (notably Lynette) for clear, timely communication and for being cooperative and supportive, including through difficult periods like hospice and bereavement. Many comments describe the environment as home-like and family-oriented, with respectful interactions between residents and staff and leadership that provides direction to caregivers. Daily living and social activities are called enjoyable, and at least one resident is noted as enjoying simple comforts like ramen, which some families report fondly.
However, there are serious and recurring negative concerns that prospective families should consider. Multiple summaries reference management-related issues: visiting restrictions or bans, a perception of "power-tripping" management, and at least one named staff incident (Jennifer Wick) that prompted escalation. Reviews mention involvement of the State Ombudsman and reports to Adult Protective Services, and even an assertion of potential shutdown. These are significant red flags because they suggest previous regulatory or safety concerns and family conflict with administrative decisions. The reviews also show inconsistent accounts about abuse: some explicitly state there was no physical or verbal abuse, while others report verbal abuse and that they had to report issues. This mixed reporting indicates variability in individual experiences and possibly inconsistent standards or enforcement.
Dining and facility maintenance appear to be another area of mixed feedback. A few reviewers complain about poor meals, with "top ramen" cited specifically as an example of inadequate dining. Conversely, at least one reviewer notes a resident enjoyed ramen, suggesting some residents may be satisfied or that expectations differ. There is also a maintenance issue mentioned (stove maintenance) which, while seemingly isolated, contributes to concerns about facility upkeep when combined with other complaints.
Taken together, the pattern is one of strong direct caregiving and individualized attention from many staff members, which provides comfort and confidence to multiple families, juxtaposed with administrative and safety concerns that have escalated to external oversight in some cases. The facility is described by some as providing outstanding, family-like care with staff who stay in touch even after a resident’s death, while other accounts describe management practices and incidents serious enough to involve regulatory bodies.
Recommendation for readers: if considering this facility, weigh the positive reports of caregiving, communication, hospice support, and a home-like atmosphere against the serious management and safety concerns. Ask the facility for current status on Ombudsman or APS investigations, any corrective actions taken, their visiting policy, staffing stability, meal plans, maintenance procedures, and references from recent families. Verifying licensing, recent inspection reports, and outcomes of the referenced complaints will help clarify whether the positive caregiver experience aligns with safe, consistently managed operations.
