Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized: a substantial number of reviewers praise the facility, its therapy programs, and many direct-care staff, while other reviewers report serious, potentially dangerous lapses in medical care, hygiene, and administrative practices. The positive commentary emphasizes caring CNAs, approachable front office personnel, advocacy from named administrators (Thomas and activities director Marianne), successful therapy and activity offerings, and signs of improvement under new Cascadia ownership. Conversely, a troubling cluster of reviews details medication errors or denials, neglect, infections leading to ER/ICU visits, and allegations of financial wrongdoing.
Care quality and medical oversight show large variance across reports. Positive accounts highlight attentive, professional nursing staff, individualized support, and measurable improvements (for example, increased eating and weight gain for some residents). However, many negative reports describe medication mismanagement — including allegations that life-dependent medications were withheld — as well as missed wound care, misdiagnoses, and failures to prevent serious complications such as blood clots. Several reviewers link these issues to hospital transfers, ICU stays, or death. These are serious claims that indicate inconsistent clinical oversight and potentially inadequate protocols during the periods described.
Staffing and management themes are mixed. Multiple reviewers single out specific staff members and administrators as strong advocates and sources of help (Thomas and Marianne are named positively), and several reviews note that new ownership/management (Cascadia) and CEO involvement have brought improvements. Many families praise a home-like, spiritual atmosphere and a team that feels family-oriented. At the same time, other reviewers report unprofessional or hostile staff behavior (cursing, 'mean' staff), a corporate feel, and significant variability in staff competence and responsiveness between shifts. Several accounts describe unresponsive staff during critical needs (e.g., call button on floor, no one available to help visitors), suggesting staffing shortages or allocation problems at times.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety are also areas of conflict. Some reviewers call the facility trustworthy, clean, and welcoming; others describe disgusting conditions, poor hygiene, and unsafe environments (open wounds not tended, residents left in soiled briefs). Specific safety concerns include a restroom lock issue that impeded assistance, a call button that ended up on the floor, and failures to prevent medical complications — all of which suggest lapses in daily safety monitoring and maintenance. These mixed reports point to inconsistency in environmental standards and care routines.
Dining and nutrition produce similarly split impressions. A number of families report malnutrition, undercooked meals, and declines in weight or 'failure to thrive' labels assigned to residents, while other reviewers note real improvements in eating, nutrition support, and weight gain for particular residents. This suggests that meal quality and nutritional monitoring may be variable and potentially dependent on staff, timing, or individual care plans.
Activities, social life, and administrative support are frequently cited positives. Reviewers describe active programming, friendly social interactions among residents, and staff (including activities leadership) who advocate for residents’ engagement. Administrative assistance with Medicaid navigation and long-term care planning is mentioned as a helpful service for families dealing with finances and placement logistics.
Financial and visitation concerns appear in multiple summaries. At least one review alleges unauthorized card charges, raising worries about financial oversight and resident/property security. Visitation complaints include access limitations, logistical inconveniences for visitors (such as long drives compounded by restricted visitation or staff unavailability), and emotional impact from limited in-person contact. These issues affect family trust and the perceived transparency of facility operations.
Patterns and overall assessment: the data indicate a facility with pockets of strong, compassionate care and engaged leadership, particularly in some units or under new management initiatives, alongside equally prominent reports of serious neglect and clinical failures. This inconsistency is the dominant theme: specific staff members and administrators are praised as exemplary, yet other staff/periods are described as neglectful or unsafe. The presence of named advocates and reports of recent ownership changes suggest improvement efforts, but the recurrence of severe allegations (medication denial, untreated wounds, infections, hospital transfers, and alleged financial misconduct) warrants caution.
For families or individuals considering this facility, the reviews suggest a thorough, evidence-seeking approach before placement: request current staffing ratios, medication-management protocols, infection-control reports, recent inspection and violation records, incident logs, and references from families of current residents. Arrange an in-person tour, meet the care team (nurses, CNAs, activities director), observe meal service, and ask about specific safeguards for medication administration, wound care, visitor access, and financial accountability. The mixed review profile means outcomes may heavily depend on unit assignment, specific staff on duty, and ongoing management effectiveness under the new ownership. The facility shows potential strengths but also reported risks that should be carefully evaluated and monitored.
