Overall sentiment across the reviews is sharply mixed and highly polarized. Several reviews praise aspects of the facility — particularly clinical therapy services, the activity program, and recent management changes — while other reviews allege serious problems with basic care, cleanliness, and staff behavior. The coexistence of strong positive comments and severe negative allegations suggests inconsistent performance across shifts, units, or time periods, and indicates both noteworthy strengths and serious risks.
Care quality emerges as a core theme with divergent accounts. Positive comments single out a "great therapy team" and staff who are "great with residents care," implying that rehabilitation and hands-on clinical care can be strong. Conversely, the most alarming reports describe abuse or neglect by staff, failure to provide personal hygiene (residents not bathed, hair not washed, nails unclean), and overall poor care leading at least one reviewer to move their loved one to another facility. These starkly negative accounts — including explicit warnings to avoid the center and expressions of regret about placing a loved one there — are significant red flags and are cited as reasons for families to be concerned.
Staff and management present a mixed picture. Some reviews credit the facility with new administration and suggest management is taking steps to improve the resident experience; planned renovations are specifically mentioned as a positive sign. At the same time, reviewers report poor staff attitudes and, in the worst cases, abusive behavior. This combination suggests variability in staff training, oversight, or culture: while some employees and teams are viewed as caring and competent, others are perceived as unprofessional or neglectful. The mention of a new administration and renovation plans implies potential improvement, but the persistence of very negative reports indicates that change may be incomplete or uneven.
Facility cleanliness and maintenance are prominent concerns in the negative reviews. Specific allegations include roach infestations, dirty floors, and toilets with feces, which point to systemic sanitation issues rather than isolated incidents. Even with plans for renovation, these present conditions raise immediate health and safety issues for residents. The existence of both reports of a "great facility" and reports of unsanitary conditions underscores the inconsistency noted elsewhere: either conditions vary between areas or timeframes, or reviewers are describing different experiences that cannot be reconciled without further verification.
Resident life and activities receive generally positive mentions. Multiple reviews note a robust activities schedule — bingo, spiritual programs, arts and crafts — which suggests that social and recreational programming is an active part of the center's offerings. This is an important strength for quality of life if those programs are consistently provided and accessible to residents.
In summary, the reviews paint a conflicted picture: strengths in therapy, activities, and indications of administrative efforts to renovate and improve are counterbalanced by serious allegations of abuse, neglect, unsanitary conditions, and poor staff attitudes. The most commonly recurring and significant concerns are personal hygiene neglect, sanitation/pest problems, and reports of abusive or neglectful staff behavior. Prospective families and oversight bodies should treat the positive items (therapy, activities, planned renovations, and new administration) as potential strengths but weigh them against the severe negative reports. The inconsistency across reviews is itself notable and suggests the facility may be undergoing transition: parts of the operation may be functioning well while other areas require urgent attention and remediation.
