Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans strongly negative. Several reviewers emphasize that the facility is attractive and modern — described repeatedly as beautiful, brand-new, and gorgeous — and the dining setup (bistro-style) and food were specifically liked by at least one family. One reviewer reported a successful, brief rehabilitation stay (approximately 2.5 days) after heart surgery, indicating the facility can provide effective short-term rehab and a positive recovery experience in at least some cases.
However, the dominant themes across the summaries are service and care problems. Multiple reviewers describe a decline in the quality of care over time or inconsistencies in care delivery. Common operational failures include long call bell wait times, laundry not being done, and bedding not being changed. Personal hygiene needs appear to have been neglected in some cases: reviewers reported reluctance from staff to assist with morning hygiene, and one patient went six days without a shower. These examples indicate problems with routine personal care and housekeeping practices.
Clinical and therapy concerns are also prominent. Physical therapy is described as spotty or inconsistent by more than one reviewer, which undermines expectations for rehabilitation services. Several reviewers cited inadequate medical care, including an unprofessional medical director or doctor and delayed communication with the patient’s surgeon. One reviewer specifically said that substantial effort — multiple calls to supervisors — was required to obtain necessary attention, implying poor responsiveness and escalation processes.
Staffing, professionalism, and management issues appear as recurring and interconnected themes. Reviewers characterized the facility as understaffed and reported unprofessional behavior from leadership: the medical director and the facility director were called out as unprofessional or rude. There are accusations of misrepresentation by management, suggesting expectations set during admissions or marketing may not match the on-the-ground reality of staffing and services. Several reviewers explicitly said they would not recommend the facility.
Positives are concentrated in the physical environment and dining/short-stay rehab outcome. The facility’s design and ambiance seem to be strong assets, and for at least one patient the dining and short-stay rehab experience were satisfactory and contributed to a good recovery. That contrast suggests the facility has the infrastructure and potential to deliver good care, but operational shortcomings—particularly staffing, communication, housekeeping, and leadership—are undermining outcomes for other residents.
Taken together, the pattern suggests a facility with good physical amenities and the capacity for effective short-term rehab, but with systemic problems in staffing levels, consistency of clinical and therapy services, housekeeping, and leadership responsiveness. Prospective residents and families should be cautious: verify current staffing ratios and turnover, ask about call bell response times, clarify how personal hygiene and laundry are handled, request details about physical therapy frequency and provider consistency, and seek direct answers about the roles and conduct of medical and facility leadership. The reviews indicate that experiences vary widely, so recent references or an opportunity to observe care routines in person would be prudent before making decisions.
