Overall sentiment in the reviews is strongly mixed, with a clear divide between accounts praising the people and those reporting significant systemic problems. Many reviewers highlight exemplary individual staff members — particularly an admissions director, hospice teams, and some nurses and therapists — who manage admissions smoothly, provide compassionate end-of-life care, and support rehabilitation. Those positive reviews describe a facility where residents feel loved and cared for, where staff act like family, and where recent renovations and cleanliness contribute to a comfortable environment.
Conversely, a substantial portion of reviewers describe alarming operational and care-quality failures. The most frequent complaints center on chronic understaffing and inconsistent staffing, which reviewers link to slow responses, staff idling or not checking on residents, and unacceptable lapses in clinical care. Several reviewers reported missed medications, daily insulin being incorrectly managed or missed, and other medication errors; these accounts include serious consequences such as weight loss, mental decline, and even death. Wound-care concerns and accusations that patients were ignored further amplify safety worries.
Communication and conduct are another major theme. Families report long hold times on phone calls and unresponsive communication, making it difficult to get updates or raise concerns. Some reviewers experienced rude or aggressive behavior from intake staff and certain nurses; there are disturbing claims of threats of eviction and threats toward family members. Other reports say helpful and compassionate social workers interacted positively, indicating inconsistency in staff behavior and training across roles.
Facility and amenity complaints are frequent and specific: many reviewers note small, old rooms with minimal natural light or small windows, sometimes lacking air conditioning or in-room TVs. Dining issues include limited dining space, meals being delivered rather than served, incorrect meal orders, and specific incidents where no alternative was offered (for example an "oatmeal-day" with no substitute). Activity programming appears sparse or poorly communicated — reviewers mention no visible activity calendar and few scheduled activities. Accessibility problems (elevator issues, long walks from distant parking) and blocked parking spots for visitors are also recurring practical concerns.
There is evidence of uneven facility condition and management: some reviewers describe a clean, well-run place with renovated areas, while others call the accommodations shabby and dirty. This polarization suggests variability by unit, shift, or time period, and points to inconsistent oversight. The presence of highly praised staff members alongside reports of serious safety incidents and poor care indicates that individual staff dedication may be mitigating, but not fully compensating for, systemic problems such as staffing shortages, communication breakdowns, and lapses in clinical protocols.
In sum, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with strong relational strengths — certain compassionate caregivers, hospice excellence, and positive admissions experiences — but also significant and recurring operational and safety concerns. The most serious patterns to note are medication mismanagement (especially with diabetes/insulin), wound-care neglect, understaffing-related delays, abrasive or unhelpful staff interactions, and inconsistent cleanliness and amenities. Prospective families should weigh the facility’s praised hospice and rehab capabilities and dedicated staff against the reported risks tied to staffing, clinical consistency, and communication. The overall pattern is one of high variability: some residents have very positive, caring experiences, while others have experienced harmful lapses and poor treatment.
