Overall impression: The reviews for Lakeland Manor are strongly mixed, with a pronounced split between very positive accounts praising clinical care and communication, and severe negative allegations concerning safety, misconduct, and neglect. Multiple reviewers commend the facility for providing skilled nursing and for being caring and communicative with families. Conversely, other reviewers raise serious, specific concerns—ranging from theft and dishonest staff behavior to claims of dangerous, unprofessional conduct—that suggest systemic problems in workplace culture and safety for residents.
Care quality and clinical services: Several reviewers explicitly call out strong clinical care, labeling the facility as providing great or skilled nursing and even recommending it as the best in the local area. These positive comments indicate that, for some residents, medical and daily care needs are being met to a high standard. However, these positive reports are directly contradicted by allegations of unsafe and neglectful care. The presence of both glowing endorsements and accusations of neglect points to inconsistent care quality across different shifts, staff members, or units.
Staff behavior and safety concerns: A major theme among negative reviews is troubling staff behavior that potentially endangers residents. Accusations include theft of personal belongings, staff dishonesty, mislabeling or swapping residents' clothing, and a general lack of regard for residents. More alarming are reports of staff loitering in the parking lot at night and playing loud music from their cars, a screaming caregiver who allegedly admitted to meth addiction, and even domestic violence among employees. These accounts raise red flags about staff screening, supervision, and workplace culture, and suggest that at least some employees may be unfit to provide safe, calm care.
End-of-life care and family interaction: One very specific and troubling allegation describes a nurse forcing family members to leave the room during a grandmother's passing. That complaint, along with other reports of dishonesty and disregard, highlights potential problems with how the facility manages sensitive situations and communicates with families during critical moments. At the same time, other reviewers explicitly praised staff for being caring toward family members and for providing good communication and updates, indicating inconsistency in how families are treated.
Property management and daily operations: Reviews mention mislabeling and swapping of residents' clothes and outright theft of belongings. These issues point to failures in laundry processes, inventory controls, or staff integrity. Such operational lapses can severely affect residents' dignity and families' trust, even if clinical care is adequate.
Management, communication, and transparency: Communication appears to be a relative strength for some reviewers—several highlight regular updates and helpful staff who keep families informed. Yet at least one review accuses staff of dishonesty, and others describe management inaction regarding safety concerns. This combination suggests that while front-line communication with families may be good in some cases, there may be shortcomings in systemic transparency, incident reporting, supervision, and accountability.
Facilities, activities, and dining: The reviews provided do not include substantive detail about dining quality, scheduled activities, or the physical facility beyond anecdotal references ("pretty nice"). Because there is little direct feedback on those areas, no reliable conclusion can be drawn from the supplied reviews about dining services or programming.
Patterns and recommendations based on themes: The strongest pattern is a polarization: several families and reviewers are very satisfied—praising nursing skill, helpful staff, and good communication—while others report severe safety and ethical problems that warrant immediate attention. The negative reports (theft, substance abuse allegations, domestic violence among staff, forced removal of family at end-of-life) are serious and specific enough that they should prompt inquiry by prospective residents, families, and regulators. If considering Lakeland Manor, visitors should ask management about staff hiring and background checks, incident reporting and resolution procedures, security measures (especially at night), laundry and property controls, supervision and training of night staff, and specific policies for end-of-life care and family presence.
Bottom line: Lakeland Manor appears to deliver excellent clinical care and family communication for some residents, but there are multiple, detailed allegations that indicate potential systemic issues with staff conduct, safety, and property management. The mixed nature of the reviews means the facility may be a good fit in some cases but raises enough red flags that prospective residents and families should perform thorough, targeted due diligence before making decisions.
