Overall sentiment across the reviews for Lakeside Post Acute is sharply mixed and highly polarized. A recurring theme is the coexistence of genuinely caring, devoted front-line staff and systemic problems that, according to many reviewers, put residents at risk. Numerous accounts praise individual nurses, CNAs, therapists, and housekeepers for compassion, responsiveness, meaningful therapy, and activities that improve residents’ wellbeing. Several reviewers credit the facility with successful rehabilitation and safe returns home, and some note recent management changes that appear to have improved morale and care in certain time periods.
However, a substantial portion of the reviews raise serious and recurring safety and quality-of-care concerns. Multiple reviewers allege neglectful care that ranges from missed hygiene and prolonged periods without food or fluids to severe outcomes such as dehydration, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, ulcers/bedsores, and even deaths. There are also reports of physical mistreatment, rough handling, red marks on residents’ bodies, and at least one alleged assault in a shared bathroom. Medication management problems are cited repeatedly: delayed doses, running out of medications, inappropriate withholding or fear of calling emergency services, and general errors that undermine confidence in clinical oversight.
Staffing and leadership emerge as root issues in many complaints. Understaffing is a common thread causing long waits for assistance, unclean conditions, and reliance on agency staff. Several reviewers describe rude, belittling, or inattentive employees and instances of staff mocking patients or discussing them inappropriately. Conversely, many reviews emphasize that caring individuals (sometimes named) worked hard to meet residents’ needs, and these staff are singled out as the reason some families felt comfortable with care. Reviewers also report high staff turnover, perceived profit-driven cost-cutting (e.g., boxed meals, snack removal), and managerial misconduct including retaliation after grievances, wage disputes, and broken promises. These management patterns are described as undermining staff morale and continuity of care.
Facility and environmental issues are frequently mentioned: the building is described as old with warped floors, shared bathrooms with two beds and limited privacy, missing bed rails, and sanitation lapses such as soiled clothing and rooms. Several reviews recount lack of basic utilities or emergency preparedness—no heat on arrival, space heaters in hallways, no air conditioning, power outages without backup generators—and security incidents including bag searches, accusations of drug activity, and police involvement. Such infrastructure shortcomings contribute to a perception of an unsafe environment and amplified risk during extreme weather or power failures.
Dining and therapeutic services show mixed reports. On the positive side, rehabilitation therapy, some successful dietary accommodations, and engaging activities like pottery and painting are highlighted. On the negative side, reviewers complain about the absence of appropriate diabetic or cardiac diet options, poor food quality, and boxed/pre-made meals. Some families described improved therapy and post-surgical recovery services, while others said therapy was stopped abruptly or inadequate.
Communication and transparency are major pain points. Many families reported poor or nonexistent updates, unreturned calls, and broken promises by specific administrators. Some reviewers felt ignored by management and described retaliatory behavior after raising concerns. At the same time, there are accounts of diligent, communicative staff who advocate for residents and keep families informed—indicating significant variability depending on timing, unit, or staff on duty.
Notable patterns and red flags: repeated allegations of neglect and abuse that prompted at least one state investigation; reports of unsafe discharges and Medicaid-related threats; allegations of staff misconduct including on-site drug use; and complaints about emergency preparedness and infrastructure. Counterbalancing these red flags are multiple testimonials of excellent individualized care, strong therapy outcomes, and recent improvements under new leadership cited by some reviewers.
In summary, Lakeside Post Acute appears to be a highly inconsistent facility where outcomes depend heavily on staffing, leadership at the time, and individual caregivers. There are clearly dedicated, effective staff members and valuable programs that benefit some residents. Simultaneously, multiple serious and recurring complaints—ranging from neglect, infection, and abuse to management failures and infrastructure lapses—warrant caution. For prospective residents and families, it is advisable to: review recent state inspection and incident reports, ask specific questions about staffing levels, emergency power and HVAC reliability, medication management protocols, dietary services, and grievance/retaliation policies; request to meet core nursing staff and therapy teams; and consider in-person visits at varying times to assess consistency of care. Regulators and family advocates may also want to investigate the recurring severe allegations to ensure resident safety and quality of care are being enforced consistently.
