Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed to negative, with serious safety and quality-of-care concerns reported alongside several positive experiences. Some reviewers praise the facility for being very clean and having friendly aides, housekeeping, and certain nurses, and a subset of residents and families report that the food is good and that their loved ones enjoy living there. At the same time, a number of reviews describe significant care failures, including dehydration and urinary tract infections that led to hospitalization, which are among the most serious and recurring complaints.
Care quality is a major area of concern and appears inconsistent. Multiple reviewers reported incidents that suggest lapses in basic nursing care and monitoring — notably dehydration and UTIs resulting in hospital transfers and an expressed falling risk for some residents. Other specific care-related complaints include resistance by staff or supervisors to discuss medications and unprofessional behavior by some employees. These issues point to both clinical and communication failures that have put residents at risk and led to family distress.
Staffing and personnel issues are a central theme. Several reviews cite staff incompetence, frequent turnover, and firings, which likely contribute to inconsistent care and fractured continuity. Conversely, many reviewers singled out individual staff members — aides, housekeeping, and certain nurses — as friendly and caring, indicating that quality may vary substantially by shift, unit, or individual employee. Complaints about unhelpful supervisors and nurses who are unaware of the facility's amenities further underscore management and training gaps.
Facilities and dining show mixed feedback. Some families and residents describe the center as very clean and appreciate the dementia/Alzheimer’s care and a dedicated Alzheimer floor, which is a notable positive for those seeking specialized memory care. However, other reviewers reported pest or insect issues, which contradicts claims of cleanliness and suggests either isolated incidents or uneven standards. Dining experiences are also inconsistent: while some residents "love the food," others report receiving cold meals. These contradictory comments again point to variability in daily operations.
Management and ownership attract criticism in several reviews. Commenters mention ownership changes and perceive management as money-focused, which can erode trust and might explain reported issues with staff stability and responsiveness. Multiple reviewers stated they would not recommend the facility and, in at least one case, a family expressed a desire to move a sister out — a strong indicator of dissatisfaction. Reports that supervisors were unhelpful and resistant to discussing important care matters like medications further compound family concerns about transparency and accountability.
In summary, the reviews portray a facility with clear strengths — friendly front-line staff members in some cases, a clean environment for some residents, available dementia-specific programming, and positive experiences reported by certain families and residents. However, those positives coexist with significant and recurring negatives: inconsistent and sometimes poor clinical care (including hospitalizations for dehydration and UTIs), staff turnover and competence issues, safety concerns such as fall risk, pest complaints, inconsistent dining service, and management/ownership issues that families perceive as financially driven and insufficiently transparent. The pattern is one of variability: individual experiences range from very positive to seriously worrisome. For prospective residents and families, these reviews suggest the importance of asking specific, detailed questions about staffing stability, clinical monitoring (hydration, infection prevention, fall prevention), supervisor engagement, pest management, meal service practices, and how the facility handles medication discussions and family communications before making a placement decision.
