Overall sentiment is highly mixed and polarized: many families praise Lakeland Manor for its caring, long‑tenured staff, clean and home‑like atmosphere, active programming, and reasonable cost, while other reviewers report serious clinical and safety failures including delayed nurse response, medication errors, alleged abuse, and neglect that resulted in injury or hospitalization. The facility elicits both strong recommendations and strong warnings; this dichotomy is the dominant theme across the reviews.
Care quality and clinical oversight: Reviews show two distinct patterns. Positive reviewers describe attentive caregivers, strong ownership involvement, and improvements in memory care compared with prior facilities. They report residents receiving good day‑to‑day assistance and respectful clinical attention. Conversely, several reviews document alarming lapses: nursing staff allegedly did not respond promptly to injuries (a broken heel, delayed checks), suspected physical abuse (handprint marks), medication administration errors, uneducated med techs, and a physician who did not return calls. These failures reportedly contributed to weight loss from not eating, emergency hospitalizations, and a need for urgent surgeries. The net impression is inconsistent clinical reliability — good for some residents but potentially unsafe for residents with higher or more complex medical needs.
Staff, communication, and management: Many reviews praise staff as kind, courteous, family‑like, and helpful, and call out long‑tenured employees and involved directors as strengths. Several families specifically say management is attentive and that the facility feels well led. However, other reviewers report poor communication, especially around after‑hours access, incident reporting, and placement decisions. Some families alleged that residents were moved into memory care against their wishes or that the facility cited lack of beds on the assisted living side. There are direct complaints about being unable to reach decision‑makers after hours and threatened legal action in extreme cases. This split suggests variability in staff performance or differences between shifts/units.
Facilities and environment: Many reviews emphasize that the facility and grounds are clean, smell fresh (no urine odors), and feel homey with nice patios and remodeled or family‑friendly areas. Several positive reviews mention tasteful décor and a “clean, beautiful environment.” In contrast, other reviewers report specific environmental problems: mold in bathrooms, strong unpleasant smells, filthy rugs, narrow confusing hallways, rooms without closets and shared rooms, and belongings left outside rooms where others could access them. These contrasting observations indicate the physical condition is uneven across the building or has changed over time (some reviews reference remodeling), and that some units may be better maintained than others.
Dining and activities: Dining experiences are another divided theme. Multiple reviewers praise tasty meals and special occasions (for example, positive comments about Christmas dinner), while other reviewers describe awful or cold food and state residents stopped eating, leading to weight loss. Activity programming is generally seen positively by several families who report many activities and residents feeling comfortable from day one, but the benefit of activities may be outweighed for families who are concerned about clinical or supervision shortcomings.
Notable patterns and risk indicators: The reviews reveal several recurring and significant concerns that prospective residents and families should scrutinize: allegations of delayed clinical response, medication errors, understaffing, inconsistent cleanliness, missing personal items, and poor after‑hours access. These are not isolated minor complaints; some involve injury, hospitalization, and claims of physical abuse. At the same time, many families report positive experiences emphasizing kindness, cleanliness, and strong leadership. The coexistence of these extremes suggests variability by unit, shift, resident acuity, or over time.
Bottom line: Lakeland Manor appears to deliver a very positive, home‑like experience for many residents, particularly those with lower to moderate care needs who benefit from friendly staff, activities, clean grounds, and reasonable cost. However, there are also multiple serious allegations about clinical neglect, medication mistakes, safety, and poor communication that make it unsuitable or risky for some residents—especially those requiring higher levels of medical supervision. Prospective families should perform focused due diligence: visit several times at different times of day, ask for nurse response and staffing ratios, probe medication administration training and error reporting, request records or policies for incident investigation, verify secure storage for personal belongings, and clarify transfer/placement policies for memory care. Those steps will help determine whether the facility’s strengths apply to a particular resident or whether the reported safety and oversight gaps present unacceptable risk.
