Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans strongly negative, with clear patterns of inconsistent care and operational problems juxtaposed against pockets of competent rehabilitation and professional nursing. The most consistent positive theme is the quality of rehabilitative services: multiple reviewers identified physical and occupational therapists and some rehab staff as skilled, responsive, and instrumental in positive clinical outcomes. Several families and residents praised specific RNs, therapists, and a few CNAs for compassionate or dignified treatment. Activities such as bingo, church gatherings, and a bistro were noted as beneficial, and some parts of the facility were described as clean, quiet, and odor-free.
However, negatives dominate the reviews and point to systemic issues. Understaffing and high staff turnover are recurring complaints and appear to drive many of the operational failures: slow or non-existent responses to call buttons and pagers, skipped showers and repositioning, delays in changing urine-soaked bedding, and long waits for assistance. Multiple reviewers described neglectful incidents—residents left in hallways in pain, left in their own excrement, or unattended for extended periods. There are serious allegations about mishandling of personal property (missing dentures and shoes) and even alleged misuse of a resident's cellphone. Medication management is another frequent concern, with reports of medications being haphazardly administered, often out of stock, or changed without consultation with the power of attorney.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance were inconsistent: some rooms were reported as nice and well-maintained while others had trash piles, undone laundry, unmade beds, and even bug sightings. Reviewers also highlighted an unprofessional or unresponsive reception/administration experience—entrance staff behaving poorly, weak security, and office managers who were unhelpful or distrusted. Communication failures occur at many levels: between shifts, between clinical staff and families, and between families and management. Several reviewers reported trying to escalate concerns (including a request to speak with the CEO or Director) with limited success; in at least one case a refund was ultimately issued but only after a long delay and persistent follow-up. A named individual, Mark Woodard, was cited by a reviewer as unresponsive to concerns.
Clinical incidents of potential harm were specifically raised: delayed recognition or escalation of a head injury, delayed transport to hospital, and inadequate response to catheter issues. These reports suggest lapses in clinical judgment or escalation protocols in some cases. Dining service received many complaints as well — late or missed meals, poor-quality food, and even allegations of food being diverted to employees or private sitters. Reviewers also noted a depressing atmosphere in certain wards (especially for dementia patients) and questionable placement decisions (a dementia patient in a mental ward), contributing to family distress.
Despite these negatives, there is clear evidence that care quality is highly variable and often dependent on which staff are on duty. Several reviewers explicitly contrasted the positive experiences with therapy teams, some RNs, and particular CNAs against the broader culture of neglect and poor management. This suggests that the facility has capable personnel and programs but suffers from uneven oversight, scheduling, and leadership. For prospective residents or family members, these reviews indicate potential benefits from the facility’s rehab programs and some professional staff, but significant risks related to day-to-day nursing care, cleanliness, communication, and management responsiveness. Families considering this facility should visit multiple days/shifts, ask specifically about staffing levels and escalation procedures, document concerns promptly, and confirm how the facility handles complaints and property security.
