Overall sentiment in these reviews is strongly mixed and polarized. Several reviewers report very serious quality and safety problems — including allegations that residents were not bathed, were not fed edible meals, were not provided physical therapy, and suffered diaper rash from delayed diaper changes. Those accounts also include complaints that staff were uncaring or rude, that phone calls were hung up on and visitors were denied access, and that formal complaints were filed with the state with at least one mention of risk of condemnation. These negative reports emphasize understaffing (examples include claims of roughly 16 patients per CNA), poor scheduling for therapy, diet mismanagement, and hygiene concerns that reviewers tie to infection risk.
Counterbalancing those very negative reports, many reviewers describe a facility with competent, caring staff and a generally pleasant environment. Positive comments name knowledgeable and supportive clinical staff, a helpful administrative team, and a receptionist (Venus) singled out for praise. Several reviewers note a high level of skill among therapists and a strong physical therapy team; others say therapy was good when it was available. The dining room and meal experience receive praise in multiple reviews (and, after a reported staffing/ownership change, a new dietary team is explicitly credited with improved food). The activities program is frequently described as upbeat and very involved, helping residents stay busy and active. Some reviewers give five-star ratings and explicitly highly recommend the facility.
A recurring theme is change over time. Multiple summaries mention ownership changes; several reviewers state that care and service have improved gradually after a change in ownership/management, citing better food, more responsive staff, easier communication, and a more engaged activities and therapy program. At the same time, other summaries indicate persistent problems or variability depending on staffing levels and shifts — e.g., CNAs described as pleasant "when they had time," and therapy quality undermined by inconsistent scheduling. This suggests that experiences may depend heavily on timing, specific staff on duty, and how recently management improvements were implemented.
Facilities and cleanliness are described inconsistently. Some reviewers report clean, well-maintained areas, no odors, nice rooms, and a lovely dining room. Others raise serious concerns about cleanliness and infection risk. The building itself is described by some as aging, which may contribute to mixed impressions about maintenance and environment. Dining is likewise mixed: some found the menu and dining experience positive, while others called meals bland and reported that renal diets were improperly relabeled or ignored prior to dietary changes.
Staff quality and training shows a split perspective. Positive reports call staff knowledgeable, caring, and proactive; negative reports allege staff who are not medically trained, not compassionate, or otherwise insufficient to meet resident needs. Understaffing is a prominent concrete criticism and is linked in the reviews to delays in care (bathing, toileting, therapy), rushed CNAs, and reduced availability of planned services. Administrative responsiveness also varies by report: some reviewers praise helpful administrative staff and easier communication after changes, while others describe rude interactions and difficulties getting information or access.
In summary, the reviews portray The Oaks At Lakewood as a facility with two distinct impressions: one group of reviewers reporting severe lapses in basic care and safety tied to understaffing and management problems, and another group reporting competent clinical teams, an active activities program, pleasant dining and common areas, and clear improvements following ownership or management changes. The most consistent positives are praise for the therapy team (in many accounts), the activities program, and certain administrative/staff individuals. The most serious and recurrent negatives are allegations of neglect, understaffing, diet and hygiene failures, and instability from frequent ownership changes. Prospective residents and families reading these mixed reviews should note the clear pattern of variability over time and shifts — experiences appear to depend heavily on current staffing, recent management changes, and which day or shift a resident encounters — and the reviews document both meaningful improvements reported by some and unresolved, potentially serious concerns reported by others.
