Overall sentiment in the reviews for MediLodge of Howell is highly polarized: many families and residents report earnest, compassionate care from specific CNAs, therapists and front-line staff, while a substantial number of reviewers describe serious and systemic problems that suggest uneven quality and frequent lapses in care. Positive accounts consistently praise therapy (PT/OT), individual caregivers, social workers, admissions staff, and the community atmosphere; negative accounts describe neglect, missed medications, poor communication, and cleanliness and safety failures. The pattern is one of sharp contrasts — excellent care in particular units or shifts, and troubling, at times severe, failures in others.
Care quality and staffing: The most frequent and urgent concern across reviews is chronic understaffing. Families repeatedly describe overworked nurses and aides caring for many residents at once, which leads to long delays in answering call lights, toileting assistance, medication administration, and hygiene care. Several reviewers report that staffing shortages directly resulted in missed medications (including insulin and seizure medications), untreated wounds or bed sores, dehydration, urinary tract infections, and delayed transfers to hospital. Conversely, many reviews single out individual CNAs, nurses, and therapy staff as compassionate, skilled, and attentive — indicating that outcomes appear to depend heavily on which unit, shift, or staff members are on duty.
Serious safety incidents and clinical concerns: Multiple summaries allege severe incidents: development of pressure ulcers, seizures after medication changes, a ventilated patient experiencing delayed response, and reports of death following inadequate care or delayed transfer. There are also statements alleging removal from hospice services without proper communication, and reports that belongings were unsecured or lost. These are high-risk complaints that families emphasize as unacceptable and, in some cases, report to state authorities. At the same time, other reviewers credit the facility with good bed-sore prevention and positive rehabilitation outcomes, which reinforces that clinical quality varies widely by case and by unit.
Management, communication, and transparency: A common theme among negative reviews is poor communication and unresponsiveness from administration. Families describe unanswered calls, lack of updates, failure to inform them of health changes, and difficulty getting managers to address concerns. Several reviewers assert that positive online reviews appear to be posted by employees or otherwise not authentic, and there are explicit accusations about management prioritizing appearance or finances over resident care. Positive reviews, however, note helpful admissions staff, efficient check-in, and staff who respond to family needs — again underscoring inconsistency in management responsiveness.
Facilities, cleanliness, and safety protocols: Accounts of the building and environment are mixed. Many reviewers report a clean, bright, and well-maintained facility with comfortable gathering spaces, secure entry, and seasonal upkeep (snow-cleared entrances, no odors). Other reviewers report serious cleanliness and safety problems: urine odors in hallways and rooms, dust and crumbs, mold in rooms, scabies outbreak allegations, and aging carpets and wings that need updates. Some reviews also cite protocol lapses (staff entering without masks during COVID, inconsistent visitation policies), and extremely concerning allegations such as employee drug use or theft — complaints that suggest major workforce screening or supervision issues if accurate.
Dining and daily living: Food and dining are frequently described as inconsistent: while a portion of reviewers praise nutritious and tasty meals and ample portions, many others criticize small portions, cold or gross food, erratic meal management, inaccessible menus for non-ambulatory residents, and messy clearing of tables. Laundry, linen changes, and personal care (showers limited, soiled sheets or diapers left) are also recurrent problem areas in negative reviews. Shared bathrooms and small rooms are cited as uncomfortable for some residents and families.
Rehab, activities, and social environment: Rehab services, therapy staff, and the indoor pool receive strong, repeated praise for helping residents recover and return home. The activities program, volunteer involvement, and community events (parties, pet visits, crafts, library groups) are highlighted positively in many reviews, with families noting improved mood and engagement for residents. These aspects are consistently among the strongest positives in the dataset.
Patterns of variability: A clear pattern is inconsistent performance — some units, staff members, or shifts provide excellent, attentive care and rehabilitation, while others appear to fall short of standard expectations. This variability leads to starkly different family experiences: some families express gratitude and relief, while others describe crises and report regulatory complaints. Several reviewers recommend frequent family visits and close oversight because outcomes appear to depend heavily on staffing levels, specific caregivers, and managerial responsiveness.
Allegations requiring investigation: Several reviews make severe allegations — theft of belongings, drug use by employees, scabies and mold outbreaks, falsified or employee-written positive reviews, and deaths associated with neglect. These are serious claims that warrant follow-up with facility leadership and, when appropriate, state inspection or enforcement bodies. The presence of such allegations alongside positive testimonials signals a need for due diligence by prospective residents and referring clinicians.
What prospective families should consider: Given the mixed but strongly polarized feedback, families should (1) ask for recent staffing ratios and turnover rates, (2) request unit-specific information and tour the exact unit where their loved one would live, (3) observe mealtimes and housekeeping, (4) verify therapy credentials and rehab outcomes if rehab is the primary reason for placement, (5) inquire about communication protocols and escalation procedures for clinical changes, (6) check state inspection reports and any substantiated complaints, and (7) plan for frequent visitation or a family advocate if possible. For short-term rehab admissions, the facility’s therapy strengths and positive rehab outcomes may be a good match. For long-term or high-acuity residents, the documented variability and the number of safety/neglect allegations suggest families should proceed cautiously and verify current conditions.
Bottom line: Reviews for MediLodge of Howell reveal a facility with meaningful strengths — notably therapy/rehab, many compassionate frontline caregivers, active social programming, and secure, well-kept areas — but also serious and recurrent shortcomings centered on understaffing, inconsistent care, communication failures, cleanliness lapses, and a number of alarming safety and negligence allegations. The experience appears highly dependent on unit, shift, and specific staff; therefore, careful, unit-level evaluation and ongoing family advocacy are essential when considering this facility.
