Overall sentiment in these reviews is highly mixed, with a clear split between accounts that describe caring, competent staff and an acceptable living environment, and accounts that document serious neglect, safety incidents, and management concerns. Positive reports emphasize compassionate nurses, dedicated housekeepers, enjoyable activities, good food, comfortable rooms, and an administration that in some cases resolved problems and was approachable. Several families explicitly said residents looked well cared for, felt safe, and experienced a peaceful environment, and a number of reviewers praised staff who went "above and beyond."
Counterbalancing those positive notes are repeated and severe negative reports. A prominent theme is staffing shortages and inconsistent nursing coverage: reviewers frequently mention short-staffing, unanswered call buttons, and delays in care, which families link to rapid declines in health. Multiple reviewers reported falls and injuries (stitches to the forehead, a black eye, and a fall that led to a hip fracture), serious medical conditions (severe UTI, repeated hospitalizations), significant weight loss, and eventual transfer and death in some cases. There are also multiple accounts of poor wound and hygiene care, including bed sores that were not cleaned properly and even reports of feces in a wound, as well as concerns about ostomy/colostomy management.
Safety and accountability are recurring, serious concerns. Reviewers described belongings going missing and clothing mix-ups (residents wearing other people's clothes), inconsistent personal hygiene support, and allegations that residents were being inappropriately sedated. Some families reported that care only improved when they or other family members were present, suggesting that staff responsiveness may depend on family oversight. There are also alarming allegations — from falsified documentation to refusal to follow powers-of-attorney — and a claim that someone inside the regulatory system tipped off the facility before inspections. While these are allegations and not verified facts in the reviews, they contribute to strong mistrust among several families.
Staff behavior appears highly variable: several reviewers call nurses "sweet" but overwhelmed, while others describe unprofessional or rude staff and managers who are forceful with dissenting patients. Some reviews single out specific employees or leadership as helpful and responsive, with management stepping in to resolve problems, while other reviews accuse management of being rude or of mishandling complaints. This variability suggests uneven training, turnover, or inconsistent enforcement of policies.
Facility conditions are described in opposing terms as well. Multiple reviewers praise the cleanliness, lack of odor, and comfortable rooms. At the same time, others describe shamefully poor cleanliness in portable toilets, offensive odors from waste, and overall hygiene failures. Dining and activities receive consistent praise where mentioned: food is described as delicious and programs such as church visits and activities are valued by families and residents.
Taken together, the reviews paint a picture of a facility with strengths — caring individuals, good housekeeping when present, enjoyable activities, and the capacity to provide comfortable rooms and meals — but with systemic weaknesses that have led to serious adverse outcomes for some residents. The most frequently cited risk drivers are staffing shortages, inconsistent nursing coverage, lapses in wound and ostomy care, and sporadic communication and accountability failures. Experiences appear to vary widely by unit, shift, and the level of family involvement. Prospective families should note both the positive testimonials about staff who "go above and beyond" and the severe negative incidents that multiple reviewers report; these contrasting themes suggest that quality of care may be inconsistent and dependent on specific staff and management responsiveness at any given time.
