The reviews for The Lodge Assisted Living & Memory Care present a sharply mixed and polarized picture, with families and residents reporting both notably positive experiences and serious concerns. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the leadership, particularly the executive or community director (often named Michelle Perry), and many describe staff as caring, compassionate, and dedicated. These positive reviewers highlight a resident-first, family-like culture, comfortable, home-like apartments with ideal room sizes and private patios, and in some cases good or even excellent dining and activities. Several accounts describe the Lodge as a safe, inviting community where staff went above and beyond, helped with medicines and meals, and improved residents' quality of life in their final months. For those reviewers, the facility provided a less costly alternative to nursing homes and supported aging-in-place effectively.
Contrasting sharply with those accounts are numerous, detailed complaints about core elements of personal care and facility hygiene—issues that are particularly concerning in a memory-care setting. Multiple reviewers describe poor supervision, inadequate training, high staff turnover and chronic staffing shortages, with the problem often magnified on weekends. These operational deficits are tied to reports of soiled or wet beds not being changed in a timely manner, residents left in soiled clothing, inconsistent showering and laundry practices, and incontinence care lapses including improper disposal of products near food service areas. Several reviews explicitly cite a persistent urine smell and general cleanliness problems, and some families moved their loved ones out as a result. These complaints tend to single out the memory care unit as being worse maintained and receiving lower-quality care than the assisted living side.
Medication management and adherence to physicians' orders emerge as another recurrent theme. Some reviews praise staff for helping with medications, while others report medications not being delivered timely, poor monitoring, and doctors' orders not being followed consistently. The inconsistency appears linked to staffing shortages and turnover; when staffing is adequate and leadership is engaged, families often report positive outcomes (improved coherence, appetite, less overmedication), but when staffing is low or transient, the quality of care lapses.
Dining and nutrition are another area of mixed feedback. Several reviewers criticize meals as overly processed, high in sodium, and heavy on starchy/carbohydrate items with insufficient fruits and vegetables. Conversely, other reviewers say meals are good or even great, indicating variability in kitchen performance or differing resident expectations. Activities and social programming receive praise in many comments—residents and families note varied activities, events, and a comfortable, home-like atmosphere—but there is a consistent caveat that activities and engagement are more robust on the assisted living side than in the memory care unit.
Management and leadership are focal points for both praise and concern. A number of reviews strongly commend the director and administrative team for being hands-on, compassionate, efficient, and for cultivating a family culture among staff. These reviewers credit leadership with improving care, 'weeding out' problematic staff, and maintaining a cheerful, clean environment. On the other hand, other reviewers describe gaps in supervision (especially on weekends), inadequate staff training, and high turnover that undermines consistency. A few reviewers raised concerns about possible fake or biased reviews, indicating skepticism about uniformly positive accounts and reinforcing the pattern of polarized experiences.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility with significant strengths and serious risks. Strengths include a strong core of compassionate staff and engaged leadership (as reported by many), attractive and comfortable living spaces, an aging-in-place model that worked well for some residents, and meaningful activities—especially in assisted living. However, recurring and specific concerns—poor hygiene and incontinence care, inconsistent medication management, staffing shortages and turnover, weekend supervision gaps, and a memory care unit that appears to receive lower-quality attention—are repeated often enough to be considered systemic risks rather than isolated incidents.
For prospective residents and families considering The Lodge, the most prudent approach is to validate current operational realities through targeted questions and observations: ask about current staffing levels and turnover rates (including weekend staffing and float coverage), request documentation or examples of staff training and infection-control/continence protocols, observe the memory care unit specifically (including during a weekend or evening shift), review medication management procedures and how physician orders are audited, and sample meals and activity schedules. Also speak with several current families (not only administration-provided references) and, if possible, visit unannounced at different times of day to evaluate consistency. The reviews suggest the Lodge can offer deeply compassionate care and a homelike environment under strong leadership and stable staffing, but there are credible and repeated warnings about hygiene, consistency, and memory-care-specific shortcomings that should be carefully investigated before making placement decisions.
