Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but leans toward serious concern about physical condition, cleanliness, leadership, and consistency of care, while repeatedly acknowledging pockets of strong frontline caregiving and an active activities program. Many reviewers describe compassionate, professional nurses and CNAs who provided comfort and effective therapy to residents; specific staff and the Activities Department received praise for events, outings, and for improving residents' moods. At the same time, numerous reviews cite extensive facility problems that materially affect residents' daily life and family trust.
Facility condition and maintenance are among the most frequently mentioned negative themes. Multiple reviewers describe the building as outdated—evocative of the 1970s—with peeling paint, worn-out furniture, dim yellow lighting, falling window coverings, and overgrown exterior landscaping. Specific infrastructure complaints include a back parking area in need of repaving and an elevator that was reportedly broken for four to five months. Cleanliness and housekeeping concerns appear repeatedly: reviewers mention strong odors (especially on the second floor), sticky dining-room tables, few dining chairs, and an overall “dirty” or “rundown” feel. These physical problems are described as persistent and create a negative impression even where clinical staff receive praise.
Care quality and staffing present a split picture. Several reviews highlight exceptional nurses, attentive CNAs, and effective therapy that left residents in good spirits; reviewers credited specific staff and leadership for going above and beyond. Conversely, other reviewers report neglect, mistreatment, and poor caregiving; some state they would not recommend the facility. High staff turnover, reportedly driven by management issues, undermines continuity of care in multiple accounts. There are also explicit allegations of poor leadership behavior, with repeated criticisms of the Director of Nursing (DON) as rude or unprofessional and accusations that management is money-focused and discourages family involvement. These conflicting experiences suggest variability in care depending on the unit, shift, or particular staff on duty.
Management, operations, and compliance concerns appear frequently and are significant. Reviewers report unprofessional leadership, long/unorganized orientations for staff, payroll issues including delayed direct deposit and alleged fake pay stubs, and threats to involve the labor board. Several comments note state investigations, which raise regulatory and quality-of-care questions. Communication problems are also reported: unanswered calls, transferred voicemails, and poor follow-up were specifically mentioned by family members seeking information or help.
Activities and resident life are consistent bright spots. Multiple reviews praise the Activities Department, noting specific programs (Sipp & Paint, Ice Cream Social), art displays, and trips such as a visit to the Brookfield Zoo. These events are reported to be well received by residents and contribute to a homelike, welcoming environment in certain parts of the facility. Reviewers who experienced recent changes under new ownership often report improvements in the building’s look, staff accessibility, and care quality, indicating that some corrective measures may be underway.
In summary, the reviews paint a facility with meaningful strengths in individual caregiving and activity programming but with systemic weaknesses in building maintenance, cleanliness, and leadership/management. Families and employees report both outstanding individual staff and problematic administrative practices; the inconsistency is a core concern. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive accounts of compassionate nurses and strong activities against repeated complaints about physical disrepair, hygiene, managerial unprofessionalism, communication failures, and regulatory scrutiny. The mentions of new ownership and some improvements are important to note, but the prevalence and severity of infrastructure and leadership issues suggest that careful, up-to-date due diligence (including recent inspection reports and direct conversations with current residents and families) is warranted before deciding on placement.
