The reviews paint a strongly mixed but coherent picture of Lake George Senior Living: many reviewers describe it as a small, home-like, family-centered community with genuinely caring staff and a peaceful lakeside location, while a subset of reviews raises serious concerns about staffing, management visibility, and specific incidents suggesting neglect. The dominant positive theme is that residents often receive personalized, compassionate attention in a quiet, clean, and welcoming environment. Multiple reviewers used language such as “family-like,” “home away from home,” and “treated as their own parent,” emphasizing individualized care, dignity, and a warm atmosphere. The property’s setting (lake view, peaceful grounds) and small scale are repeatedly praised, as are homemade, family-style meals, holiday celebrations that include families, and staff who appear proud and involved.
Care quality impressions are polarized. A large group of reviewers report high-quality, geriatric-focused care: attentive staff, competent caregiving, and meaningful positive impacts on residents’ quality of life. Those reviewers often recommend Lake George strongly for aging loved ones and emphasize independence-with-dignity, daily living assistance (cleaning, cooking, laundry), and staff that treat residents like family. Conversely, other reviews raise troubling concerns about caregiving standards: reports of underpaid and undertrained staff, neglectful practices (residents left to sleep or watch television unattended), and at least one instance where staff behavior was captured on camera and described as inappropriate (tucking in a resident). These negative reports suggest variability in day-to-day caregiving quality and potential gaps in staff training and supervision.
Staffing, activities and transportation are recurring practical themes. On the positive side, reviewers frequently note that staff are welcoming and gentle, and that the environment fosters joy among residents. On the negative side, reviewers frequently note limited or only intermittent activities, and several specifically say there is no transportation provided or that transportation is unreliable. One serious incident described a resident being taken by ambulance to a hospital and then having to arrange an Uber back—this points to gaps in incident follow-up or logistical support. The combination of intermittent programming and transportation shortfalls indicates that activity and mobility needs of residents may not be consistently met, which can be important for families to verify before placement.
Management and ownership perceptions are mixed and form a core tension in the reviews. Some reviewers describe the owner as going “above and beyond,” and portray management as supportive and engaged. Others, however, characterize the owner as cheap, criticize management as lazy, and say the director is rarely present on the floor or even in the office. This split suggests either inconsistent experiences over time or differences across shifts/staff; it may also indicate turnover or uneven leadership presence. For prospective families, the contrast between reviewers who felt well-supported by management and those who experienced or observed neglectful care underscores the importance of verifying current leadership, staffing levels, and supervision practices during a tour.
Facilities, cleanliness and morale are largely praised: the facility is described as small, clean, and quiet, with breathtaking views and friendly groundskeeping. Multiple reviewers explicitly state the facility feels safe and well-kept, and several say it is not only a great place for residents but also a great place to work—suggesting good morale among some staff. However, given the reported incidents and staffing concerns, these positive impressions should be balanced against the negative accounts when judging consistency.
Overall sentiment is decidedly mixed but tends toward strongly positive from families who experienced consistent, personalized care in the community. Those reviewers emphasize the warm culture, homemade meals, celebrations with families, and substantial improvement in residents’ quality of life. Counterbalancing those positives are serious red flags from other reviewers—reports of neglectful caregiving, staff being underpaid/undertrained, lack of activities and transportation, management absence, and at least one troubling incident involving ambulance transport and security-camera evidence. The pattern suggests that Lake George Senior Living can offer an excellent small-home experience and highly compassionate care in many cases, but that there may be variability in staffing, management oversight, and programming that could pose risks.
For families considering Lake George Senior Living, the reviews suggest the facility is worth touring if the family prioritizes a small, home-like, lakeside setting and personalized, family-style care. During a visit, prospective families should specifically ask about staff-to-resident ratios, staff training and turnover, activity schedules, transportation policies, incident protocols, and who is on site during various shifts. Given the conflicting reports about management and owner involvement, asking for recent references and observing staff-resident interactions across different times of day will help determine whether the positive experiences reported by many are consistent in the current operation and whether the concerning incidents reflect isolated past problems or ongoing issues.
