Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans negative, with several recurring operational and environmental concerns balanced against a handful of specific positive impressions. Multiple reviewers praise individual staff members as friendly and accommodating and note that the facility’s rehab services and certain areas can be nice. However, frequent, specific complaints about care responsiveness, hygiene/odors, food quality, and building maintenance dominate the feedback.
Care quality and staffing: The most consistent and troubling pattern is slow response to call lights and resident needs — one reviewer reported a 45-minute wait. Several comments describe inattentive CNAs (for example, staff staying in the dining room rather than assisting residents and residents being allowed to move about with food on their clothes). At the same time, other reviewers explicitly call staff very nice and accommodating, indicating variability in individual caregiver performance and shift-to-shift inconsistency. Reviewers also noted issues such as lights being left on in halls while residents who need help are not attended to, which reinforces concerns about staffing attentiveness and supervision.
Facilities and maintenance: Multiple reviewers describe the building as old and in noticeable disrepair: ceilings needing painting, blocked sink drains, and aged tiles were singled out. There are strong reports of unpleasant odors in the halls described as urine and feces, which raises hygiene and sanitation concerns. While some reviewers call the facility nice or very clean, the accounts are inconsistent: some say housekeeping comes daily, while others say housekeeping is lacking. These contradictions suggest uneven maintenance and cleaning standards across different units or time periods.
Dining and activities: Dining receives uniformly negative comments about food quality (described as horrible or awful). In addition to poor food, there are behavioral and supervision problems in the dining area (staff congregating there, residents left with food on clothing). Activities offerings appear limited; the facility does have a small activities room, but few reviewers emphasize robust programming, so activity options may be minimal compared with expectations.
Management, communication, and policies: Reviewers reported difficulty reaching staff by phone and long waits for administrative callbacks, which complicates concerns and escalation of problems. COVID-19 visitation restrictions were cited as a limiting factor to access — some negative experiences may be influenced by pandemic-era rules. A few reviews express extreme dissatisfaction, suggesting license concerns and even that the facility should be shut down; while these are strong subjective statements, they indicate significant mistrust among some family members.
Patterns and takeaways: The most salient themes are inconsistent care and cleanliness, delayed response to resident needs, poor food, and aging infrastructure with maintenance issues and odors. Positives include staff members who are helpful and a rehabilitation unit that some reviewers liked. Because reports conflict on basic issues like cleanliness and housekeeping frequency, the evidence points to uneven performance across shifts, teams, or time. Prospective families should weigh the praise for individual staff and rehab services against repeated operational complaints, and they may want to request up-to-date inspection reports, ask about call-response protocols, recent corrective actions for sanitation and maintenance, and observe mealtimes and staffing during visits to verify current conditions.
