799 Washington Street N, Auburn, ME 04210
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Support Solutions - Washington
Pros
Support Solutions is the very best place to be CRMA certified.
Support Solutions are simply awesome.
Cons
Neglectful and unprofessional.
Support Solutions has been incredibly disappointing.
The company has shown a severe lack of care for their clients, leaving them unattended and vulnerable.
One client, who is disabled and unable to manage basic tasks on her own, was left without supervision or support.
Shockingly, she recently fell down the stairs, reopening a head injury from a surgery she had a few years ago.
This is unacceptable for a company that is supposed to provide care and assistance.
Support Solutions' failure to provide consistent support or supervision for their clients has created a dangerous environment.
Leaving a disabled person to fend for themselves with no staff present is a serious breach of responsibility.
It’s clear that this company does not prioritize the well-being of those they are entrusted to help.
Their negligence could result in far worse outcomes.
Review
Support Solutions - Washington in Auburn is best suited for families that prioritize formal caregiver credentials and a structured care framework, even if day-to-day supervision can feel inconsistent. The presence of CRMA-certified staff signals a baseline of professional training and adherence to standards that can be reassuring for clients who need assistance with routine tasks, meds oversight, or regular check-ins without requiring intensive medical care. This provider can work for households that value a documented, credentialed approach and are prepared to stay actively engaged, monitor performance across shifts, and push for timely corrective action when gaps appear. It is not a hands-off arrangement, but for the right family, the credentialed layer can be a meaningful foundation.
Those with little patience for uneven supervision or who require constant, vigilant monitoring should strongly consider alternatives. Clients who are high risk for falls, who have significant cognitive or behavioral needs, or who depend on consistently responsive staff for safety may find this option lacking. The ability to rely on steady coverage and immediate intervention is non-negotiable for some seniors, and here the risk of neglect or delayed response has been reported. Families should be especially cautious if the client requires 24/7 supervision, strict adherence to care plans, or highly consistent staff who can establish trust through daily reliability.
On balance, the pros tied to credentialing and some positive staff interactions do offer meaningful offsets in select situations, yet they fail to fully neutralize the core drawbacks. The strong credentialing credential can translate into better initial training, clearer task boundaries, and firmer accountability on paper. A subset of reviewers also praises responsive, caring staff when shifts align and supervision is present. However, these benefits do not consistently materialize across units or days, and the strongest concerns center on real-world gaps: clients left unattended, supervision lapses, and a caregiver pool with variable consistency. When safety hinges on reliable staffing, credentials alone cannot compensate for daily coverage failures.
The most consistent and troubling themes revolve around neglectful and unprofessional conduct that places vulnerable clients at risk. Reports describe disabled individuals left without supervision, leading to injuries such as fall-related head injuries, and a culture where a resident can be effectively left to fend for themselves. Such incidents point to systemic issues in staffing discipline, supervision structures, and accountability. The fear is not merely dissatisfaction but genuine danger, which reframes any perceived positives about training into a secondary consideration. In short, quality care here appears to hinge less on formal credentials than on the actual, dependable presence of caregivers who act decisively to protect residents.
The rating mix, seven five-star notes against several low marks, signals a troubling variation in experience, often pointing to inconsistent leadership or shift coverage rather than a uniform standard of care. Families should approach with a rigorous verification plan: request detailed staffing schedules, ask for the exact supervision protocol for high-risk clients, and seek recent incident logs or QA reports. A site visit and conversations with current clients or families can illuminate everyday realities that a brochure cannot capture. Expect explicit commitments about caregiver-to-client ratios, daily progress notes, and a transparent escalation path when concerns arise. Only with such assurances can the potential benefits of credentialed staff be made to count.
For families weighing options, the prudent path is clear: demand concrete safeguards, insist on a stable and clearly defined supervision framework, and verify that a high standard of safety is consistently applied. If the provider cannot deliver 1:1 oversight for a high-risk client, or cannot demonstrate reliable, continuous supervision across all shifts, alternatives should be pursued, whether another local home-care agency with stronger safety metrics or a facility-based option with a proven track record. In the end, supports that combine credentialed staff with unwavering day-to-day reliability are essential; without that combination, the risk to safety and wellbeing simply outweighs the perceived advantages.





Assisted Living Support for Veterans: A Complete and Detailed Overview
Exploring the Contrasts Between Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing
8 Key Indicators That Suggest It May Be Time to Transition from Assisted Living to Skilled Nursing Care