Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans heavily toward serious concerns. Multiple reviewers report severe problems with cleanliness, infection control, staffing, and basic resident care; others describe positive experiences with therapy staff and individual caregivers. The most frequently cited and most alarming themes are reports of filthy conditions, infection outbreaks (specifically C. difficile), and lapses in personal protective equipment and sanitation practices. Several reviews describe rooms and common areas as dirty or dingy, odor problems (urine smell), bedpans left on the floor or under beds, and instances where residents were left unclothed or in soiled clothing. These reports indicate systemic housekeeping and hygiene failures that reviewers link directly to resident safety and dignity issues.
Staffing and caregiving quality show stark variability. Many reviewers describe the facility as short staffed, relying on agency or newly hired inexperienced staff. Consequences reported include slow or no response to calls, residents left in hallways or forced to remain in wheelchairs, bedpan neglect, missed showers, and lack of follow-up after falls. At the same time, several reviews praise individual therapists, nurses, aides, and orderlies as compassionate, collaborative, and competent; some families explicitly state they prefer or are satisfied with the care their relative received. This mixed pattern suggests that care quality may depend heavily on specific shifts, units, or individual staff members rather than being consistently managed across the facility.
Infection control and safety are recurring, specific concerns. Multiple reviewers allege outbreaks and transmission of C. difficile, visitors contracting infection, COVID rooms left insecure, and staff failing to gown up or use appropriate PPE. Additional safety and privacy issues were raised, such as the absence of curtains between beds, poor handling of falls (no phone calls to family), and worries about overmedication. These reports raise red flags about clinical oversight, infection-prevention protocols, and regulatory compliance that families and prospective residents should consider seriously.
Communication, management, and administrative practices were also criticized in multiple reviews. Reported problems include poor or non-existent callbacks, being told not to call, lack of notification of power-of-attorney or family members about major events, missing personal items (clothes, wedding rings), and allegations of improper handling of funds. Some reviewers asked to speak to administrators and indicated they did not receive adequate responses. These issues portray gaps in leadership responsiveness and resident-family engagement.
Facilities and dining elicit polarized opinions. Several reviewers describe the building as older, dingy, with long tile-floored hallways, awkward bathrooms, limited or no comfortable outdoor space, and an unappealing exterior. Others call the facility very clean and nice. Dining experiences are similarly split: multiple accounts of inedible or awful food contrast with some residents who ‘love meals’ and report very good service. These contradictions again point to inconsistent experiences that may vary by unit, timeframe, or individual expectations.
Overall pattern and recommendation implications: reviews reflect a facility with pronounced variability — some caregivers and therapy staff provide good, even excellent, service, but recurring and serious allegations (poor sanitation, infection outbreaks, neglect, understaffing, poor communication, lost belongings) are frequent enough to form a clear pattern of concern. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive notes about therapy and individual caregivers against the consistency and severity of the negative reports. If considering this facility, visitors should ask specific, documented questions about infection-control protocols, staffing ratios, PPE policies, staff training and turnover, property/asset handling procedures, privacy measures, and complaint escalation pathways. They should also request recent inspection reports and infection/quality metrics to verify whether the issues raised in reviews have been addressed.
