Overall sentiment across the submitted reviews is mixed but leans strongly negative. Several reviewers describe serious quality-of-care issues including poor nursing supervision, clinical incompetence, and care decisions made without consulting residents' primary physicians. A number of accounts describe clinical deterioration that required hospital readmission and one report even cites a worsening foot condition risking amputation. These reports suggest potential systemic problems in clinical oversight, assessment, and timely escalation of medical concerns.
Staffing and staff behavior are recurrent themes. Many reviewers portray staff as inattentive, lazy, or focused on revenue rather than resident wellbeing. Reports include residents spending the vast majority of the day in bed, not being encouraged to eat, and experiencing weight loss and depression. Conversely, a subset of reviews praises individual staff for providing attentive, personal care and being kind; this indicates variability in caregiver performance and that positive experiences do exist but are not consistent across the facility.
Communication and administrative problems are another major pattern. Reviewers describe poor interdepartmental communication, privacy violations (including during phone calls), and belongings being misplaced after moves. Multiple reviewers specifically note that the primary physician was not consulted about important care decisions. These types of lapses raise concerns about care coordination, transitions, and respect for resident privacy and property.
Cleanliness and environment are also flagged as problematic by multiple reviewers who state rooms were frequently not clean. However, contrasting comments highlight roomy accommodations and some residents enjoying the food, which again underscores inconsistent performance across units or staff shifts. The presence of favorable comments about dining and room size suggests the facility has some positive environmental attributes that are not uniformly experienced.
Cost and transparency emerged as additional concerns. At least one reviewer complained about high cost and perceived overpricing, and another alleged misrepresentation about the facility type (stating it was not actually a nursing home as represented). A former employee posted a strongly negative account and explicitly discouraged others from choosing the facility, which, combined with clinical safety concerns, contributes to an impression that potential residents and families should exercise caution.
Taken together, these reviews indicate a facility with uneven care quality: some residents receive attentive, kind care with good food and adequate rooms, while others experience neglect, poor clinical oversight, communication failures, and administrative lapses. The frequency and severity of the negative reports—particularly those describing medical deterioration, hospital readmission, and safety risks like falls—are significant and should be carefully considered by prospective residents or families. If considering this facility, it would be prudent to (1) tour in person to observe staffing patterns and cleanliness, (2) ask detailed questions about nursing oversight, physician involvement, fall prevention protocols, and care transition procedures, and (3) seek references from current families whose loved ones have similar care needs.
