Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly mixed but leans toward serious concern. Multiple reviewers report compassionate, skilled care from specific long-term staff, social workers, therapists, and named nurses/CNAs, and several accounts praise the memory care unit and the facility's ability to manage very ill residents. At the same time, an equal or greater number of reviews recount systemic problems: understaffing, high turnover, inconsistent care quality across shifts and units, and long delays responding to call lights or family phone calls. These issues appear to be pervasive enough to produce urgent and severe consequences in some cases.
Care quality is described along a wide spectrum. Positive accounts emphasize attentive nurses and CNAs who communicate well with residents and families, and reports that some residents were clean, well-groomed, and received good therapy. Conversely, numerous reviews detail neglect: residents left in urine or feces, soiled linens and wheelchairs, lack of showers for days, missed medications, bed sores, muscle contractures, failure to perform mandated therapy, repeated hospitalizations for infections (including sepsis), and even instances of dried blood on floors. Several reviewers explicitly state that care plans were not followed and that supervision was insufficient. These negative reports are frequently tied to staffing shortages and high staff turnover.
Staffing and communication are central themes. Many reviewers praise individual staff members, social workers, or administrators for being responsive and compassionate, but they also describe a revolving door of nurses and CNAs, short-handed shifts, and staff who are difficult to reach by phone. Long hallways and units distant from nurses’ stations are cited as structural contributors to slow response times. Families report restricted or tightly controlled visitation policies, surveillance during visits, and poor or inconsistent communication from the facility, which exacerbates distrust. Some reviews also allege unvaccinated personnel and note that the facility has been cited or reported to state authorities.
Therapy, activities, and emotional well-being receive mixed reviews. Therapy is called out as a strength by some families and residents, though others say therapy has declined or was not delivered as mandated. Activity programming is frequently described as low-energy or lacking motivation, and several reviewers noted residents were kept in rooms with little stimulation. These deficits in programming and social engagement are often mentioned alongside reports of residents being isolated or confined to rooms for meals.
Facility and environment descriptions are similarly varied. Multiple reviewers note that interiors are generally well maintained, but the atmosphere is institutional. Rooms are said to be average-sized with limited storage; some private rooms and nicer views (tree views) are available. However, other reviews list maintenance issues such as inoperable telephones in rooms and first-floor urine odor. Dining is described as uneven — a few reviewers mention surprisingly good meals, but many describe food as lackluster and note that residents are not always seated or assisted at mealtimes.
Management and regulatory concerns are present in the reviews. Some families found administrators and office staff approachable and helpful, and social workers and nursing managers were commended for taking time to speak. Nevertheless, multiple reviews reference state reports, citations, legal actions, and calls for shutdown, reflecting serious family concerns. The overall pattern suggests that while individual employees often try to provide good care, systemic issues — staffing levels, inconsistent adherence to care plans, communication breakdowns, and operational shortcomings — are leading to negative outcomes for many residents.
In summary, the reviews present a bifurcated picture: pockets of high-quality, compassionate care delivered by dedicated staff coexist with repeated reports of neglect, poor hygiene, missed treatments, and regulatory concerns. The most frequent drivers of negative experiences appear to be staffing shortages, high turnover, and poor communication, which together produce inconsistent care across different units and shifts. Prospective families should note the variability — some residents receive excellent, attentive care, while others experience serious lapses — and consider direct questions about staffing ratios, care-plan compliance, infection control, visitation policies, and recent regulatory findings when evaluating this facility.
