Overall sentiment: The reviews for Lake Mills Health Services are highly polarized but skew toward negative concerns about safety, staffing, and day-to-day care. While a number of families and residents report respectful, competent staff members and positive clinical outcomes, a substantial portion of reviews describe serious lapses in basic care, frequent unresponsiveness, and safety events that required emergency care or hospitalization. The volume and seriousness of the negative reports—falls, significant weight loss, a documented very low blood sugar event, and multiple emergency room transfers—are key patterns that weigh heavily on the overall impression.
Care quality and safety: Many reviewers reported inattentive or neglectful care, particularly for short-term or higher-acuity patients. Specific safety incidents were mentioned multiple times: falls resulting in emergency room visits and brain bleeds, dangerously low blood sugar (blood sugar 30), significant weight loss (10 pounds), and patients left unattended despite fall risk. Call-bell response delays and long waits to be helped to the bathroom were recurrent complaints and are directly tied to the reported safety events. Several reviewers explicitly connected understaffing (sometimes attributed to COVID-related shortages) to these failures. There are also repeated statements about rushed or limited physical therapy and lack of assistance for walking, which can increase fall risk and slow recovery.
Staff behavior and consistency: Staff performance is described as highly inconsistent. Some reviews name specific staff (Pam, Cindy, Chris, Laura, Tracy) as compassionate, professional, and dignity-preserving, and several families reported successful recoveries and satisfactory care. However, many more reviews describe rude, unprofessional, or poorly trained staff, including CNAs, nurses, maintenance, and phone/front-desk employees. Complaints include demeaning language toward residents, lying about medication by an RN in at least one report, rude behavior during feeding and medication administration, and staff getting angry when assistance is requested. This variability suggests the facility has some strong individual caregivers but lacks consistent standards or supervision to ensure uniformly respectful, skilled care across all shifts.
Staffing and responsiveness: Minimal staffing and slow response to call lights are central themes. Multiple reviewers noted that there were not enough staff to feed residents, assist with walking, or respond quickly to requests for help, especially at night. One review explicitly described call lights not being answered for over an hour. The new phone system reportedly not working and unpleasant phone staff further impaired communication. These operational and staffing problems underpin many of the other negative outcomes described.
Dining, nutrition, and personal care: Food and nutrition received frequent criticism. Reviews describe “terrible meals,” no specialized diets for diabetic or heart patients, meals limited to residents’ rooms in some cases, and even no breakfast or no food set aside for a resident. Poor nutrition likely contributed to some weight loss complaints. Personal hygiene and grooming were other problem areas: reviewers reported patients not bathed, not shaved, and toenails/fingernails not trimmed. There is at least one account where inadequate assistance with feeding or medication administration was reported as demeaning or rude.
Facilities and amenities: The facility is described as basic and not recently remodeled; bathrooms are shared in some areas. On the positive side, several reviewers said the building was clean (one called it “pristine but not shiny”), beds were comfortable, and there was a pleasant outside view and recreation room. However, other reviewers mention smells, cold temperatures that caused safety concerns, and lack of on-site salon services. The environment is therefore viewed as serviceable by some and deficient or institutional by others.
Activities and social life: Activity offerings receive mixed but somewhat positive notes. The recreation room, games, and an activity director who helped residents socialize were cited as meaningful benefits by some families. These services appear to contribute to better experiences where staff engagement is present.
Management and communication: Communication and management responsiveness are variable. At least one reviewer noted that the administrator or social worker returned calls and engaged, whereas others reported late notification about illness or lack of observed clinical rounds. Problems with the phone system and front-desk staff make contacting the facility harder according to multiple accounts. This inconsistency in management communication mirrors the staff inconsistency noted elsewhere.
Patterns and overall impression: The dominant pattern is wide variability in resident experience. Positive reports often single out specific staff members and cite respectful, skilled care and good outcomes. Negative reports are more numerous and often describe systemic issues: understaffing, slow response to needs, poor nutrition and grooming, safety incidents, and unprofessional behavior. Because the negative reports include concrete safety events and hospitalizations, they should be treated as serious red flags for potential quality and supervision problems. The facility may be affordable and has some strengths (clean areas, certain caring staff, and activities), but the inconsistent care and documented safety incidents significantly detract from its overall reliability.
Implications for prospective residents/families: Based on these reviews, prospective residents and families should proceed cautiously. If considering Lake Mills Health Services, it would be prudent to: (1) tour the facility in person and observe staffing levels during the time of day/night the resident will need most support; (2) ask for staffing ratios and call-bell response time data; (3) inquire about handling of high-risk conditions (diabetes, cardiac diets), fall prevention protocols, and recent incident reports; (4) request information about grooming and personal care routines and whether specialized diets and feeding assistance are reliably provided; and (5) ask about turnover, staff training, and how management addresses complaints. The presence of praised individual caregivers is encouraging, but the frequency and severity of negative reports suggest that quality can vary considerably depending on shift and staff assigned.
