Overall sentiment is mixed but leans toward caution: reviews show a sharp divide between residents and families who experience compassionate, high-quality care from certain aides, nurses and therapists, and those who report serious lapses in basic safety, infection control, communication, and management responsiveness. Several reviewers praise individual staff members and therapy teams, describe a warm, family-like atmosphere, and note pleasant grounds and regular religious activities. At the same time, multiple accounts describe understaffing, poor training, missing possessions, unattended residents leading to falls, and hospital-level complications that suggest systemic problems in clinical care and oversight.
Care quality and clinical safety: The most serious themes center on clinical lapses and adverse outcomes. Multiple reviews describe hospitalizations and serious infections or complications (blood clot, urinary tract infections, VRE, bloodstream infection). Specific clinical failures cited include improper catheter care, beds not being repaired, residents left unattended in bathrooms resulting in falls, and sporadic nutrition/meal delivery. These reports indicate potential deficiencies in infection control, clinical protocols, fall prevention, and basic nursing follow-through. Conversely, a number of reviews highlight exceptional care by aides, nurses, and therapists — including statements that therapists are "the best around" and that residents who transferred out saw improvements — suggesting uneven care quality that may vary by unit, shift, or individual staff member.
Staffing, training, and behavior: A consistent criticism is understaffing and inadequate staff training. Reviewers state that staff appear uninterested in resident welfare, focus solely on routine tasks (for example, medication rounds) while neglecting comfort and holistic care, and sometimes spend time chatting about personal matters during shifts. Positive comments about compassionate aides and long-tenured staff co-exist with allegations of slow response times and untrained personnel. This contrast points to variability in staff performance: some employees provide excellent, family-like care, while others contribute to safety and satisfaction problems. Several reviewers also report that management and supervisors are unresponsive when complaints are raised.
Facilities and services: The physical environment receives mixed remarks. Multiple reviewers appreciate the beautiful surroundings and find the facility suitable for certain transitions (short-term stays). However, there are concrete facility shortcomings: rehab services were moved to another part of the building and at least some reviewers no longer recommend the rehab program; there are no private rooms or in-room showers for some residents; and cleanliness could be improved according to several comments. Meal service is described as sporadic by some reviewers, which raises concerns about consistent nutrition and dining operations.
Activities, spiritual care, and community: Several reviewers note positive nonclinical offerings, such as religious services and hymn singing on Fridays, and describe a warm, community feel for residents who have longer-term stays. These elements are important contributors to resident quality of life and are highlighted as strengths in multiple reviews.
Management, communication, and policies: Concerns about leadership recur in the reviews. Families report that complaints are often unanswered by supervisors or owners, that rules can seem arbitrary, and that there is unclear leadership. One reviewer specifically accuses a social worker of fabricating claims about clients. Suggestions from reviewers include better security (guards) and a basic visitor amenity (coffee/food area). These management and communication failures amplify the impact of the clinical and staffing problems because they restrict families' ability to resolve issues or trust the facility's oversight.
Patterns and likely explanations: The reviews indicate a polarized experience: some units, shifts, or individual staff members deliver exemplary, compassionate care and strong rehab services, while others show systemic problems — understaffing, training gaps, poor infection control, and poor management responsiveness. The presence of both glowing and very negative reports suggests inconsistency rather than uniformly good or bad performance. The note that a resident improved after transfer to another facility implies that some of the most serious problems may be facility-specific rather than solely resident-related.
Bottom line and considerations: Prospective residents and family members should approach this facility with caution and do a targeted evaluation: ask about staffing ratios and turnover, infection control procedures, catheter and wound-care protocols, how the facility handles missing belongings and fall prevention, and how complaints are escalated and resolved. If considering short-term rehab, verify current rehab location, staffing, and outcomes since reviewers noted the rehab had been moved and was not recommended by some. For long-term stays, speak with current long-term residents and families about consistency of care across shifts, and inspect room options (private rooms, shower availability) and visitor amenities. The facility shows real strengths in certain staff and therapy offerings, and some residents report excellent experiences; however, the frequency and severity of the negative reports about safety, clinical complications, and management responsiveness are significant and warrant careful inquiry before placement.
