Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized: several reviewers praise therapy services and certain staff members and describe rapid improvement and successful discharge home, while a substantial number of reviews describe serious safety, sanitation, and clinical-care failures. The dominant positive theme is the quality of rehabilitation therapy—multiple reviewers explicitly call out outstanding PT/OT services and dedicated therapy staff who help residents achieve goals and return home quickly. Alongside that, some families report compassionate, family-like treatment from particular aides or nursing staff, bright/common areas, decent to excellent meals, spacious rooms, and satisfactory respite stays.
However, a recurring and significant negative theme is inconsistent or poor nursing and custodial care. Numerous reviews allege neglectful clinical care including dehydration, mismanagement of diabetes/high blood sugar, failure to nourish or hydrate residents, unattended wounds or bandages, and at least some reports that a resident died after perceived inadequate care. Several reviewers say staff responsiveness is slow (especially to bathroom needs), claim staff appear overworked or understaffed, and report emergency-room transfers related to care problems. These clinical safety concerns are among the most alarming patterns in the reviews and are raised repeatedly enough to be a central red flag.
Sanitation and cleanliness are another major divide. Some reviewers explicitly describe the facility as bright and clean and praise hallway cleanliness, but many others report strong, persistent urine and feces odors, dirty linens, beds soiled with urine or blood, trash and bodily fluids on floors, and even reports of bugs. There are also complaints that basic supplies were missing on admission (soap, towels, blankets), and that shared rooms reduce privacy—descriptions range from "nasty" and "dump" to "prison-like". This wide discrepancy suggests inconsistent housekeeping and infection-control practices across units or shifts.
Staff behavior and management/oversight issues are another consistent thread. While some staff are described as proactive, communicative, and caring, other reviews report hostility, condescension, poor communication, and a sense that administrators failed to act when problems were reported. Several families describe rigid policies and even pressure regarding DNR decisions. The combination of perceived administrator inaction with allegations of serious clinical and sanitation problems contributes to a narrative of variable oversight and accountability.
Resident quality-of-life factors show mixed reports as well. Multiple reviewers cite lack of activities and limited outdoor access, and some characterize dining as "school-like," while others praise the food. Positive comments about therapists, some well-staffed shifts, and successful respite care show there are real strengths in the facility—particularly in rehabilitation services—but these strengths appear unevenly distributed.
Taken together, the reviews suggest a facility with strong rehabilitation capabilities and some dedicated employees, but also with potentially serious systemic problems in nursing care, sanitation, staffing consistency, and management responsiveness. The variability in experiences—ranging from "fantastic" to "horrific"—indicates the quality of care may depend heavily on unit, shift, or individual staff members. Families considering this facility should weigh the demonstrated excellence in therapy against multiple reports of neglect, infection-control lapses, and administrative inaction, and should verify current staffing levels, recent health-inspection results, wound- and diabetes-care protocols, and how complaints are handled before making decisions.
