Overall sentiment in the reviews is highly polarized: many reviewers report outstanding rehabilitation outcomes and excellent, compassionate care from specific staff members, while a significant number of reviews describe serious systemic problems including understaffing, management issues, poor hygiene, and unacceptable lapses in basic care.
Rehabilitation services are the clearest strength of Lakeside Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Multiple reviews praise the PT/OT teams as knowledgeable, dedicated, and effective. Reviewers frequently cite measurable improvements in mobility and activities of daily living, timely and goal-directed therapy, well-equipped and organized rehab spaces, in-room therapy options, and staff who tailor programs to the patient’s age and needs. Several families report quick recoveries and successful short-term stays after surgery, and therapy staff (and admissions personnel who facilitate rehab stays) are singled out repeatedly for positive comments.
Nursing and direct care are described inconsistently. Many reviewers call out nurses who are attentive, professional, and timely with medications, and numerous CNAs/aides receive praise for compassion and hands-on care. However, there are equally strong reports of inconsistent nursing quality, long waits for assistance, call lights unanswered, refusal to assist with toileting, delayed or absent diaper changes, and in some extreme accounts, bed sores and severe neglect. Night and weekend shifts receive disproportionate criticism in several reviews. These contradictions suggest staffing variability by shift and unit: the rehab unit is repeatedly noted as a place where staffing and care are stronger, whereas long-term care and second/third shifts show more frequent problems.
Staffing levels, turnover, and use of contract or agency personnel emerge as a recurring concern tied to many negative experiences. Reviewers commonly describe chronic understaffing, high turnover, and temporary staff perceived as doing the minimum. These staffing problems are linked by multiple reviewers to poor responsiveness, hygiene lapses, and inconsistent standards of care. Several family members explicitly connect staffing shortages to failures such as delayed emergency response, ignored stroke symptoms, and inadequate assistance for basic needs.
Administration and management receive mixed to poor marks. Some families praise admissions staff, an efficient intake process, and specific administrators or social workers (several by name) who made them feel supported. Conversely, many reviews call out administration as belligerent, unresponsive, money-driven, or dismissive of complaints. Specific administrative failures cited include refusal to provide transportation for off-site appointments, charging bed-hold fees while discarding belongings, and being unhelpful or rude when family members raised concerns. This dichotomy suggests variation between front-line admissions/social work staff and higher-level management or ownership.
Food and dining are frequent pain points. Numerous reviewers describe meals as unappealing, unhealthy, and not accommodating to special diets (notably heart-healthy needs). Complaints range from bland or gross-tasting food to specific reports of meat that 'smells bad' and a lack of vegetables, fresh fruit, or alternative meal options. At least one reviewer mentioned no forks on weekends. Positive comments about food exist but are far outnumbered by negative reports about nutrition and quality.
Cleanliness, infection control, and safety concerns appear in a subset of reviews with serious allegations. Several accounts describe filthy conditions, inadequate cleaning, soiled linens, and failure to maintain hygiene standards; one review alleges extremely severe neglect (e.g., prolonged soiling). Others describe lapses in COVID protocols and breakthrough infections. These reports, though not universal, are sufficiently frequent and severe to be a major area of concern and warrant scrutiny.
Patient experience and culture vary widely. Some reviewers describe a compassionate, home-like atmosphere with respectful, attentive staff and meaningful activities. Others recount shouting by staff, privacy breaches (staff discussing medical histories), rude behavior, and a general lack of compassion. The result is a bifurcated reputation: excellent for certain short-term rehab patients and specific staff interactions, and problematic for other residents—especially those in long-term care or on less-staffed shifts.
Notable operational issues include refusal to transport patients to external appointments, reported delays in emergency responses, inconsistent shower and hygiene policies, billing/bed-hold disputes, and occasional reports of belongings being discarded. Several reviews single out named employees in a positive light (e.g., admissions staff and particular CNAs), indicating that individual staff members can significantly influence family perceptions.
In summary, the facility appears to deliver strong rehabilitation outcomes and has many individual staff members who provide outstanding, compassionate care. At the same time, recurring systemic problems—understaffing, high turnover, inconsistent management, dining inadequacies, and intermittent hygiene and safety failures—produce a range of poor experiences, particularly in long-term care and off-peak shifts. Prospective families should weigh the facility’s capability for short-term, therapy-focused stays (where reviews are most positive) against the documented risks in long-term care continuity, staffing consistency, food quality, and administrative responsiveness. If considering Lakeside, ask specific questions about the unit/staffing for your anticipated care level and shift, meal accommodations, infection-control practices, transportation policies, and how the facility addresses complaints and care lapses; request references and, if possible, speak with families of current residents in the same unit you would use.
