Overall sentiment across reviews is highly polarized, with clear patterns of strong rehabilitation services and select compassionate staff contrasted against frequent and serious complaints about nursing care, management, sanitation, and safety. Many reviewers praise the rehab department and specific caregivers and therapists for being attentive, friendly, and effective; several families explicitly credit the therapy team with good outcomes and hospital-level physical therapy. Memory care (Braly) is highlighted positively in multiple reviews, noting structured dining, good activities, and staff who are experienced with memory-impaired residents. Some long-term residents and families report stable, caring placements with clean, homey rooms, excellent food, and consistent, well-managed care—demonstrating that the facility can and does provide good care for some individuals.
However, a substantial portion of the feedback details severe and recurring problems centered on nursing and management. Common themes include unresponsive nursing staff, favoritism in attention to residents, high staff turnover, poor continuity of care, and lead managers who are rarely seen or unresponsive when concerns are raised. Several reviews describe neglectful situations: residents left in urine, sheets not changed for extended periods, long waits for assistance, and instances where basic hygiene and toileting were inadequately managed. There are multiple allegations of serious medical lapses: one review cites a UTI that was not rechecked and allegedly progressed to sepsis requiring ICU and hospice care; other reports claim oxygen was promised at discharge but withheld, potentially endangering the patient. These are not isolated frustrations about service quality but are grave claims implying risk to resident health and safety.
Sanitation and facility condition are another consistent concern. Numerous reviewers reported dirty rooms, urine odors, cockroaches or other pests (rats, roaches, ants), and outdated or scuffed furniture and mattresses that appear to be of minimum quality. Some accounts even describe porta-potty use in rooms and sheets that were not changed for weeks. Conversely, other reviewers state that the facility is clean and well-kept, indicating significant variability between wings, rooms, or time periods—possibly tied to staffing levels or turnover. Several comments describe the building as dated or in disarray and compare it to a broken-down hospital, while a minority feel it is in pretty good shape for an older facility.
Food and nutrition emerge as mixed but frequently problematic. While some guests praise restaurant-quality meals and excellent food, many others complain of cold, unappetizing, or unhealthy meals, lack of snacks, and poor handling of special diets (not diabetic-friendly). Nutrition concerns are tied directly to reports of residents not eating for extended periods in a few severe cases. Activities programming receives largely positive mentions—hand massages, ice cream socials, crafts, and musical events are repeatedly cited as bright spots that enhance residents’ quality of life.
Management, communication, and admissions practices are inconsistent according to reviews. Positive experiences include warm phone welcomes, useful group meetings, and prompt follow-up when leadership engages. Negative patterns include poor or nonexistent responses from admissions and supervisors, difficulty contacting managers, and slow or inadequate communication about medical issues. Several reviews note that new ownership was a concern, with some improvement claims but also reports that residents are not being prioritized under newer management.
Safety and seriousness of allegations appear frequently enough to be noteworthy. Reports of bells going unanswered, people screaming for help, unbadged or rough-handling staff, theft by caregivers, and allegations of being held against a resident’s will point to systemic lapses in oversight and security in certain cases. There are also multiple mentions of short staffing—exacerbated during the COVID era—that correlate with many of the neglect, sanitation, and responsiveness complaints.
In sum, reviews paint a facility with pockets of strong, compassionate care and an excellent rehab program, particularly for higher-acuity or therapy-focused patients, and a memory care wing that is often praised. At the same time, there is a pronounced and recurrent set of serious concerns: inconsistent nursing quality, alleged neglect and medical lapses, sanitation and pest problems, dated facilities, poor meals for some, and unreliable management communication. The pattern suggests significant variability in resident experience depending on unit, staff on duty, and possibly timing (e.g., pandemic staffing pressures or transitions in ownership). Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strong rehabilitation and activity offerings and the positive experiences reported by some long-term residents against the recurring reports of nursing neglect, safety incidents, sanitary lapses, and management unresponsiveness. If considering this facility, ask specific, recent questions about nursing staffing ratios, infection control and pest management practices, recent incidents and their resolutions, how continuity of care is ensured, how nutrition needs are met (including diabetic diets), and whether the memory care wing and rehab departments operate under different supervisory structures than the general nursing units.
