Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly negative with a smaller but noticeable set of positive comments focused largely on individual caregivers and the facility’s location. The dominant themes are persistent understaffing and high staff turnover, which reviewers tie directly to declining care quality, poor cleanliness, and frequent operational failures. While multiple reviewers single out individual employees for compassionate and dedicated care — even working long hours and 'going above and beyond' — these positives are overwhelmed in many accounts by systemic issues that affect resident safety, health, and daily life.
Care quality and clinical management are recurring areas of concern. Numerous reviewers report missed or irregular clinical tasks such as blood sugar testing, inadequate wound care, lapses in antibiotic management, and hospitalizations that they attribute to facility neglect. There are also reports of privacy breaches, difficulty obtaining medical records, and evasive or unresponsive behavior from administration and the Director of Nursing. Several reviews mention that conditions and care worsened after ownership or management changes, and some reviewers have filed complaints with regulators including the Missouri Attorney General; compliance letters and potential legal action are cited.
Sanitation and the physical environment are major, consistent complaints. Reviewers describe severe mold and mildew, rust, plumbing problems, bed bugs, filthy common areas, and rooms that are small, dark, and depressing. Maintenance appears poor: pothole-filled driveways, overgrown trees, nonworking pools or gyms, and a general sense of corporate underinvestment in the building. These environmental problems create an impression of an unhealthy and unsafe setting — one reviewer even described mask requirements tied to visible mold, and multiple reports characterize the facility as unsanitary or 'deplorable.' Such conditions raise infection-control concerns and contribute to the negative perception of clinical care.
Safety, security, and resident supervision are other prominent issues. Reviews recount failures in visitor verification and unsecured entries, multiple people in rooms without ID, residents leaving the facility unsupervised (with police sometimes involved), and a general sense that the facility is not secure. These reports, combined with staffing shortages, suggest lapses in basic supervision and safety protocols that put residents at risk.
Food, activities, and amenities received frequent criticism. Many reviewers compare the food unfavorably (some as 'worse than prison food') and note severely limited meal choices. Activities staff and programming are described as lacking or insufficient, and several advertised amenities (library, rec room, beauty parlor, gym, pool) are reported as missing, nonfunctional, or closed. There is inconsistency among reviewers — a few note an activity room, cafeteria, and library — which points to variability by building area, time, or outdated online information.
Staffing and management dynamics are mixed in the reviews. On the positive side, several comments praise specific staff members for being knowledgeable, compassionate, and supportive; instances of staff support from outside organizations (e.g., LIMAS) are also noted. On the negative side, many reviewers describe low pay, burnout, long hours, and a bifurcation between a few dedicated caregivers and others perceived as uncaring or unprofessional. Communication problems with administration are frequent: unanswered phone calls and emails, inability to view rooms, and slow or no responses to complaints.
There is a clear pattern of deterioration reported by multiple reviewers after ownership or management changes, including regulatory attention and complaints. Several reviewers explicitly call out misinformation on the facility’s website versus on-the-ground reality; this inconsistency undermines trust and suggests inadequate oversight or transparency. The combination of regulatory complaints, compliance letters, and potentially legal actions mentioned by reviewers indicates that problems may be systemic and recognized beyond individual anecdotal experiences.
In summary, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with some committed caregivers and a pleasant wooded location, but one that is struggling with systemic issues — chronic understaffing, maintenance and sanitation failures, inconsistent or poor clinical care, safety/security lapses, and weak management responsiveness. These issues have led to strong negative experiences for many residents and families, with occasional positive pockets of care. For prospective residents or family members, the pattern suggests high risk: verify current staffing and clinical practices, inspect the physical environment in person, confirm which amenities are actually operational, check recent regulatory history, and speak directly with families currently using the facility before making placement decisions.
