Overall sentiment in the reviews is mixed but leans positive on day-to-day care, cleanliness, and staff attention while raising serious concerns about management decisions and some clinical/behavioral practices. Multiple reviewers praise the facility’s cleanliness, the attentive and helpful nature of staff, and a family-like atmosphere. Several residents or family members described pleasant, emotional departures after lengthy stays (one noted a two-year pleasant stay), and some explicitly highly recommend the community. The presence of a memory care unit is mentioned positively, and staff support and responsiveness are recurring compliments.
Care quality and staff: The most consistent positive theme is the quality of frontline caregiving. Reviews repeatedly call out staff as attentive, extremely helpful, and providing tremendous support; these comments suggest strong daily care interactions and staff who create a homey environment. Emotional reactions to leaving and recommendations indicate that many residents and families feel well-supported. The memory care unit is noted, implying that there are services for residents with cognitive impairment, and at least some families were satisfied with those services.
Facilities and cleanliness: Cleanliness is a standout strength. Multiple reviewers describe the facility as extremely clean, with dedicated cleaning staff and clean bathrooms called out specifically. The facility interior is described as nice, reinforcing the perception of a well-maintained environment.
Activities and transportation: Activity programming appears to be generally positive — reviewers mention diverse activities throughout the week, bingo specifically, and an available community bus. These offerings suggest an active calendar and some transportation resources for residents. However, there are notable caveats: bus access may be restricted based on resident behavior, and one review says there are no outdoor activities, which could matter to residents who value time outside or community outings.
Management, policies, and safety concerns: The strongest negative themes involve management style and resident-treatment policies. Several reviews allege strict management, with an administrator described as multitasking and management problems noted more broadly. More serious accusations include instances where residents were evicted or “kicked out” for being outspoken and allegations of abuse. One review claims the owner “lets her get away with anything,” implying lack of accountability for certain staff or managers. These comments represent significant red flags because they concern resident rights, safety, and dispute-resolution processes. They stand in contrast to the otherwise positive remarks about frontline staff and the environment and suggest inconsistency between caregiving staff behavior and managerial or ownership practices.
Medical and clinical concerns: A few reviewers raised clinical concerns, specifically about residents being given “too many medications” and frequent doctor visits being called out as issues. While the reviews praising staff suggest competence in daily care, these clinical comments suggest families should ask targeted questions about medication management, pharmacy oversight, and the facility’s protocols for medical appointments and prescribing.
Patterns and recommendations for prospective families: The pattern is one of a facility that provides clean, supportive, and activity-rich daily life for many residents, with particularly strong praise for caregiving staff and the facility’s upkeep. At the same time, there are serious, repeated complaints about management decisions (evictions, strict enforcement, alleged abuse) and concerns about medication practices. Prospective residents and families should balance the commonly reported strengths (clean facility, caring staff, active programming, memory care availability) against the management and clinical concerns. It would be prudent to ask the community direct questions about behavioral policy and appeals, incident reporting, staff supervision and turnover, medication review processes, use of the community bus and criteria for access, and availability of outdoor activities. Verifying regulatory records, recent inspection reports, and speaking with current families about management responsiveness would help clarify whether the negative reports represent isolated incidents or indicate systemic issues.
In summary, Long Lake Assisted Living appears to excel in cleanliness, staff responsiveness, and day-to-day resident experience for many reviewers, but there are recurring and serious concerns regarding management practices, resident discipline/eviction, and medication/clinical oversight that warrant careful inquiry before making a placement decision.
