Overall sentiment across these reviews is mixed but leans toward significant concern. Several reviewers report strongly negative experiences involving care quality, staff behavior, cleanliness, and safety; at the same time a minority of reviewers praise leadership and describe the community as a good or acceptable place for certain residents. This polarization suggests inconsistent performance: some families have satisfactory experiences while others encountered multiple, serious problems.
Care quality and staff behavior are central themes. Multiple reviews accuse staff of misconduct, including yelling at residents and leaving residents wet after bathing. Reviewers explicitly call out poor care and say the facility was "not fit for loved ones." There are also reports of staff smoking outside and a generally negative impression of staff behavior. At least one reviewer praised leadership as knowledgeable, and some families said it was a great place for their parents, which indicates leadership or administrative strengths that have not consistently translated into uniformly positive frontline care.
Facility cleanliness, maintenance, and safety concerns appear repeatedly. Reviewers describe the building as dirty, run-down, and cramped. There are reports of rats outside, which raises pest-control and sanitation concerns. One reviewer said the facility should be closed down, reflecting how severe some respondents perceive these issues. Infection-control worries are also present: a reviewer left due to virus concerns, which ties into both cleanliness and overall health-safety practices.
Dining and basic service delivery show specific, actionable problems. Several reviewers mention poor food quality, and at least one complained that meals were served without silverware—an indicator of staffing or systems failures. Combined with comments that staff are hard to get hold of, these points suggest operational and staffing shortfalls affecting daily resident needs.
Property accessibility and handling of personal items are additional problem areas. One review cited accessibility issues, describing the site as "walk-only" yet noting wheelchair users are present—this suggests uneven accessibility accommodations or confusing physical layouts for residents with mobility needs. There are also documented incidents of unreturned or mismatched belongings and clothing being sent back to families, which point to lapses in personal-care procedures and inventory management.
Taken together, the reviews reveal a pattern of inconsistent care and operations: leadership and some resident experiences are positive, but recurring reports of staff misconduct, unreturned belongings, poor hygiene/maintenance, rodent sightings, inadequate dining service, and poor responsiveness are substantial red flags. For anyone evaluating this community, the mixed feedback means it would be important to: (1) verify infection-control and pest-management practices, (2) tour the facility in person and observe mealtime and staff-resident interactions, (3) ask management about staffing levels and complaint-resolution procedures, and (4) request references from current families whose residents have needs similar to your own. The frequency and severity of negative reports—especially those involving resident mistreatment, sanitation, and safety—warrant careful scrutiny before making placement decisions.
