Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed and sometimes polarized: several reviewers note clear, visible improvements — including recent upgrades, new or improved staff, the presence of physical therapists, and trained RNs/CNAs — while other reviewers describe serious, persistent clinical and quality-of-care failures. Positive comments emphasize cleaner rooms, well-planned meals, the helpfulness of the business office, and the kindness of many frontline staff. The facility’s location next to a hospital and the availability of amenities are also repeatedly cited as strengths that matter to residents and families.
However, there are multiple and significant safety and clinical concerns that recur across reviews. The most consistent clinical red flag is diabetes management: reviewers specifically report inadequate monitoring, dangerous blood sugar fluctuations, and an absence of a dedicated diabetic diet. Related to clinical oversight, there are complaints about medication monitoring not being close enough and aides who appear insufficiently trained to handle routine and emergent care needs. Several reviews describe neglectful situations — residents left in soiled clothing or sitting in feces and urine — and instances of broken dentures or glasses that were not replaced and family members not being notified. Repeated falls are mentioned, suggesting both risk-management and staffing/supervision problems.
Staffing and care quality appear inconsistent. Some reviews praise kind, helpful, and newly trained staff, while others say aides are not trained and overall care is poor. This inconsistency suggests variability in individual staff performance, turnover, or uneven training/oversight across shifts. Reviewers note a contrast between areas or units that are well maintained and staff who are attentive, and other areas where rooms are in varying condition and upkeep is lacking. The comment that the facility was “previously deplorable” combined with mentions of upgrading indicates there may be an ongoing transition — improvements in infrastructure and some staffing changes are underway, but systemic clinical and supervisory issues persist.
Operational and management impressions are similarly mixed. The business office is called helpful in multiple reviews, indicating some administrative responsiveness, yet other management-related criticisms include failure to notify families after incidents and a perception by some that the facility charges high rates for substandard care (phrased by reviewers as a “high cost dumping ground”). These perceptions highlight a gap between administrative/amenity strengths and clinical quality/safety performance.
In summary, the facility shows signs of positive change — renovations, new personnel, therapy services, and pockets of good care — but the reviews also document several serious and recurring concerns that should not be overlooked: diabetes and medication management failures, reports of neglect and inadequate supervision leading to falls and hygiene problems, inconsistent room upkeep, and uneven staff training. For prospective residents or families, these patterns suggest the facility may be improving but remains inconsistent in clinical care and safety. If considering this facility, watchers should verify current clinical oversight practices (especially for diabetes and medication administration), staffing levels and training, incident notification protocols, and conduct an in-person tour of multiple units and dining/mealtime practices to confirm whether the positive changes are uniformly implemented.
