Overall sentiment in the reviews for Sage House - Laurel II is highly polarized. A substantial number of reviewers describe excellent, individualized, family-style care: very clean, modern homes run like "tight ships," with an involved owner (several refer to "Kiki" or "Mama Bear Kiki") who communicates proactively with families. Positive reviewers consistently praise warm, loving staff who go above and beyond — providing daily updates, photos, weekly calls, laundry, paperwork help, and coordination with outside medical or rehab services. Many families report strong medication management, nurse visits, tailored meals (including attention to glucose control), compassionate end-of-life care, quick intakes when needed, and a true sense that residents are nourished, safe, and treated with dignity.
Contrasting strongly with those accounts are multiple serious negative reports raising safety and regulatory concerns. Complaints include chronic staffing shortages, reports of a 1:9 staff-to-resident ratio, and assertions that there are no licensed staff onsite and that caregivers have minimal training. Several reviewers allege inconsistent and risky medication practices (meds passed by caregivers, or only a single staff member authorized to administer medications who would leave the facility), and some describe residents being left unattended for hours. More severe allegations include failure to move patients leading to bed sores, call bells reportedly removed, force-feeding, and instances of verbal abuse (owner yelling at a resident or family). There are also claims of state fines and deceptive or predatory billing — for example being charged an unusually high 10-day rate purportedly above typical monthly rates at other facilities.
Facility and dining impressions likewise diverge. Many reviewers emphasize outstanding housekeeping, clean and comfortably redone homes, and very good food (home-cooked meals, baked cookies, meals tailored to residents’ needs). In contrast, at least one review raises infection-control concerns (meals prepared by owner or caregivers without gloves, no designated kitchen staff). This mix suggests variability in adherence to policies or uneven staff training and oversight.
Management and regulatory themes are mixed as well. Multiple families applaud the owner’s hands-on involvement, responsiveness, and family-focused approach, whereas other reviewers accuse management of deceptive business practices, inadequate staffing, and poor oversight that contributed to neglectful conditions. The presence of state fines noted in reviews supports the need for prospective families to review inspection history and complaint records. The juxtaposition of heartfelt testimonials about individualized, tender care with serious allegations of neglect and abuse points to inconsistent experiences that may reflect staffing fluctuations, turnover, isolated incidents versus systemic problems, or different time periods/locations within the operation.
In summary, the dominant patterns are twofold: (1) many families report exemplary, compassionate, small-home care with excellent communication and personalized services, and (2) several reviewers report alarming safety, staffing, medication-management, billing, and regulatory issues. These conflicting patterns make it essential for prospective residents and families to conduct focused due diligence before placement. Recommended verification steps include checking current licensure and staffing levels, reviewing state inspection and complaint histories, asking specifically about who is authorized to administer medications and what backup coverage exists, clarifying contract rates and short-term versus monthly pricing, observing meal preparation and infection-control practices, and requesting recent family references. Observing staff-resident interactions in person and confirming written policies on call-response times, repositioning/skin-care protocols, and incident reporting will help determine whether a given resident’s experience is likely to be one of the highly praised personalized care or at risk of the concerning issues reported by other reviewers.
