Overall sentiment in these reviews is predominantly positive, with a clear and recurring emphasis on the quality and warmth of the staff and the homelike nature of the community. Multiple reviewers specifically praise caregivers as exceptional, caring, respectful, and devoted; staff are described as attentive listeners who communicate clearly and provide customer-service-focused interactions. Many reviewers say the environment feels like a second home for residents, noting cozy, appealing interiors, themed houses, and a family-like atmosphere. The campus and grounds receive repeated positive mention — beautiful scenery, nature walking paths, and attractive grounds that allow residents to enjoy the outdoors.
Dining and housekeeping are strong themes in the positive reviews. Home-cooked meals, fresh bread, and consistently good to fantastic food are highlighted by several respondents. Cleanliness is reported as excellent in many reviews, with phrases like "immaculately clean room" and "very clean" used repeatedly. Admissions and administration are often characterized as welcoming, informative, and easy to work with; a named staff member received positive call-out for responsiveness, and some reviewers recommend the facility highly.
Despite the many strengths, there are notable and potentially serious concerns that create a mixed overall picture. A subset of reviews documents troubling lapses in personal care and cleanliness — for example, reports of a urine-soaked resident and an allegation of an eight-hour delay in changing a diaper. These incidents, combined with statements suggesting neglect or dereliction of duty, are serious red flags and contrast sharply with the many positive accounts. Another recurring negative pattern is inconsistency in staff demeanor and attentiveness: while many reviewers describe staff as outstanding, others report rude or unprofessional behavior (eye-rolling, spoiled-teenager demeanor) and staff distracted on the phone. This variability suggests differences in performance between shifts, departments, or individual caregivers.
Activities and programming show mixed feedback. Several reviewers praise great programs and community engagement through song and companionship; others describe activities as sparse. This split indicates that while meaningful programming exists and is appreciated by some residents, it may not be consistent or sufficiently broad to meet all residents' expectations. Cost is also a concern for at least a portion of reviewers — some cited the price as prohibitive, whereas others explicitly noted good pricing, again reflecting variable perceptions based on individual circumstances.
Management and administrative responsiveness are similarly mixed but lean positive overall. A number of reviews commend the administration as caring, attentive, and helpful; a new management team and quick response by named staff garnered praise. That said, the presence of at least one review advising against placement with a "zero rating" and calls to stop placement underscore that some families experienced unacceptably negative outcomes. Taken together, these divergent accounts point to a facility that offers many real strengths — compassionate staff, a pleasant campus, strong dining, and clean environments — but that also has pockets of serious failure in care and inconsistent staff behavior that must be addressed.
In summary, Generations at Lewiston appears to offer a warm, home-like environment with many devoted caregivers, attractive facilities, and good dining for a majority of residents and families. However, reviewers reveal inconsistency: alongside high praise are specific, serious allegations of neglect and unprofessional conduct that warrant careful scrutiny. Prospective residents and families should weigh the frequent positive reports about staff, cleanliness, and campus quality against the reported incidents of neglect, inconsistent staff professionalism, and occasional limited activities or cost concerns. The pattern suggests a generally strong culture of caring with some notable exceptions that could reflect staffing variability, supervision gaps, or isolated incidents rather than systemic failure — but those incidents are significant and should be investigated further by families considering placement.
