Overall sentiment across the reviews is highly polarized: many reviewers report that individual caregivers are compassionate, dedicated, and provide dignified care, while an equal or larger set of reports describe serious systemic problems with cleanliness, staffing, and management. The result is a facility where the quality of experience appears to vary dramatically depending on timing, staff on duty, and specific unit—some families describe exemplary one-on-one care and active, engaged staff, while others report conditions that raise significant safety and regulatory concerns.
Care quality: Several reviews strongly praise direct care staff—CNAs and some nurses are described as loving, respectful, and willing to go above and beyond for residents. Named staff (Cynthia, Viviana, and a social worker) are highlighted as positives, and multiple reviewers emphasize that when staff are adequately present they provide appropriate attention, dignity, and social engagement. At the same time, there are multiple, detailed allegations of neglect: residents left in soiled diapers or feces for extended periods, reports of a family member left in their own feces for about an hour with staff allegedly ignoring follow-up reports, and claims that nurses were inattentive (examples include a nurse at a desk during care times). Several reviews specifically state delays or absence of medical intervention, with families demanding hospital transfers or noting no doctor was made available.
Staffing and professionalism: A major theme is chronic understaffing and its downstream effects. Reviewers report overworked staff, frequent use of agency and floating staff, nurses and unit managers performing CNA duties, and irregular staffing practices that lead to inconsistent care. This understaffing is tied to breakdowns in routines and attention to detail. There are also recurring reports of unprofessional behavior: favoritism in pay/assignments, internal drama, backstabbing, rude interactions, and staff not following handbook rules. Conversely, some reviewers explicitly call the staff ‘‘respectable’’ and ‘‘loyal,’’ underscoring that dedicated individuals work at the facility even if systemic issues persist.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety: The reviews contain numerous, specific sanitation complaints that are among the most serious concerns. Recurrent descriptors include foul odors of urine and feces, visible cockroaches in rooms and on walls, dead roaches under beds, mold, condemned or damaged ceilings, and generally dirty or nasty conditions. Several reviewers say the facility “reeks” and is “asqueroso,” and note faulty air conditioning and a cold environment in some areas. Mattress quality is criticized (thin, jail‑like mattresses), and some rooms are shared. These sanitation and maintenance problems raise both comfort and infection-control concerns; they are repeatedly tied to respondents’ distrust of the facility’s attention to health and safety.
Medical attention, infection control, and PPE: Reviews allege inadequate access to medical care at times—complaints include no doctor available, no ambulance called in urgent situations, and families having to demand hospital transfers. Infection-control issues are specifically called out: lack of PPE for staff and residents and the pest-related unsanitary conditions, which together suggest elevated risk for infections. These themes amplify the safety concerns rooted in understaffing and poor maintenance.
Dining, activities, and social life: Comments on dining and activities are mixed. Several reviewers praise the activity staff, list multiple daily activities, and appreciate courtyard access, basketball or outdoor socialization options, and opportunities for interaction—especially noted in the dementia unit. Other reviewers report distrust of dietary aides and extreme claims of no food or water at times. Some families report good meals, while others cite incidents that suggest lapses in meal service or monitoring of dietary needs. This again reinforces the pattern that experience is inconsistent and often dependent on staffing and the particular shift.
Management and regulatory implications: Multiple reviews express frustration with management practices, saying the facility appears profit-driven, that staff concerns are ignored, and that policy or handbook rules are inconsistently applied. Several reviewers mention concerns serious enough to imply potential regulatory scrutiny or closure (regulatory closure concerns), and some explicitly call the facility “not recommended.” Communication failures—phone calls not answered, reports ignored—add to families’ sense that management responsiveness is inadequate.
Overall assessment and patterns: The most consistent pattern across reviews is variability. When staffing levels and frontline caregivers are present and engaged, residents receive compassionate, dignified care and active programming is available. When staffing is thin, the same facility exhibits neglectful behavior, sanitation failures (including a pervasive roach problem), maintenance defects, and lapses in medical attention and infection control. This split creates sharp contradictions in reviewers’ final judgments: some call it the “best care,” others “dirty, disgusting, not recommended.”
For prospective residents or families: the reviews strongly suggest visiting in person, inspecting rooms and common areas for cleanliness and pests, asking about current staffing ratios and use of agency staff, reviewing recent health-inspection or regulatory reports, and asking management about pest control, maintenance schedules, infection-control policies (including PPE use), and protocols for urgent medical transfer. If possible, identify the specific unit and speak with families of current residents on that unit—many positive and negative comments appear unit- or shift-specific. The facility appears to employ compassionate, committed caregivers, but persistent systemic issues—particularly sanitation, staffing, and management responsiveness—pose serious and repeatable risks that should be investigated and monitored closely.
