Overall sentiment from the supplied reviews is strongly negative with one consistently noted positive: the facility offers regular activities. The dominant themes are concerns about the quality and reliability of care, problems with staffing and leadership, poor facility cleanliness, and dissatisfaction with the value residents receive for the cost. Multiple reviewers urge others to avoid placing loved ones at this location.
Care quality and resident safety are major concerns. Reviews report a fall and inadequate follow-up care, specific instances of residents (including a grandmother) not being checked on, and general neglect of disabled residents. Several comments indicate that residents receive little assistance, which suggests that basic caregiving tasks and monitoring are inconsistent or insufficient. These are serious issues because they directly affect resident well-being and safety and were raised more than once across the summaries provided.
Staffing and management receive repeated criticism. Reported problems include unhelpful staff, staff described as unqualified, and the facility being understaffed. Leadership and management behavior is criticized: Kim Cerney is specifically named and associated with poor leadership, blame-shifting, excuses, and a lack of trustworthiness. One reviewer alleges the facility owes them money. These comments point to systemic administrative and personnel problems that extend beyond isolated frontline worker behavior to managerial accountability and financial or operational reliability.
Facility upkeep and accommodations are also criticized. Rooms are described as very small yet expensive, and cleaning issues such as dust and cobwebs are explicitly noted. The combination of high rent with small, poorly maintained living spaces contributes to a perception of poor value for money. Dining is another area of dissatisfaction—reviewers say the food is disliked—adding to the sense that multiple basic services (cleanliness, nutrition, assistance) are falling short.
The single consistent positive is that regular activities are offered, which indicates some programming exists to engage residents. However, reviewers indicate that programming alone does not offset the more significant concerns about safety, assistance, cleanliness, management trustworthiness, and value. Several reviewers recommend avoiding the facility entirely, citing neglect, financial disputes, and community problems that suggest broader organizational issues rather than isolated incidents.
In summary, the reviews depict a facility with active programming but serious and recurring problems in caregiving, cleanliness, staffing levels and qualifications, and management conduct. The pattern of complaints—falls without proper follow-up, residents not checked on, unhelpful and underqualified staff, poor leadership with alleged blame-shifting and financial issues, small and dirty rooms, and disliked food—paints a consistent picture of neglect and mismanagement. Prospective residents and families should weigh the limited positive (activities) against repeated and significant negatives and consider inspecting care practices, staffing levels, management responsiveness, room conditions, and contractual/financial arrangements in person before making placement decisions.
