69 Androscoggin Avenue Fl 2, Lewiston, ME 04240
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Androscoggin Up-Support Solutions
Pros
Support Solutions are simply awesome.
They are the very best place to be CRMA certified.
Cons
The company is neglectful and unprofessional.
It shows a severe lack of care for its clients, leaving them unattended and vulnerable.
A disabled client was left without supervision, leading to a fall and reopening a head injury.
It fails to provide consistent support or supervision, creating a dangerous environment.
The negligence could result in far worse outcomes.
The company violated a friend's rights by restricting social interactions.
Reviewers urge others to reconsider choosing this company for professional care or support services.
Review
Androscoggin Up-Support Solutions is best suited for families that prioritize formal staff credentials and a care model anchored in professional standards, especially when a residentās needs are primarily assistance with daily tasks and require reliable oversight. The positive signal here is the emphasis on CRMA certification, which suggests a workforce trained to handle clinical tasks and to operate within structured care protocols. For families who value documented qualifications, clear care plans, and accountability that can be measured, this option can offer a solid foundation, provided supervision remains consistent and predictable. The caveat is that all of these advantages hinge on steady staffing and dependable oversight; gaps in supervision threaten to negate the credentialing promise.
Explicitly, those who may want to consider alternatives include families with residents who demand constant, vigilant supervision and a proven safety record. Across multiple accounts, neglect and inconsistent monitoring emerge as the core red flags, raising serious concerns for anyone with significant mobility limitations or cognitive impairment. If social engagement, timely assistance, and an atmosphere where staff is consistently present are non-negotiable, other providers with higher staff-to-resident ratios and stronger incident-tracking practices deserve serious consideration. For rights protection and ongoing autonomy, alternatives with transparent safeguards may be a wiser fit.
Key pros present a plausible counterweight to the concerns when the operation is functioning well. Credentialing signals a baseline of clinical capability that can translate into better task performance, quicker response times, and more structured care plans in practice. At least one reviewer highlighted the organizationās commitment to certification as a strength, implying that trained staff can deliver competent assistance and maintain professional standards. Where management ensures staffing consistency, families may observe improved communication, more reliable assistance with daily routines, and a clearer path for escalation when needs shift. These potential benefits, however, depend entirely on actual day-to-day staffing stability and supervision.
The most troubling cons center on neglect, unprofessional behavior, and a pattern of leaving clients unattended. A disabled person falling after a period without staff supervision represents a direct safety failure and a breach of fundamental care duties. When supervision is inconsistent, the environment becomes risky, and the perception that well-being is not prioritized will erode trust quickly. The reported gaps, unreliable support, sporadic oversight, and questions about whether residentsā rights are consistently protected, paint a troubling landscape. The discrepancy between credentialing claims and the lived experience on the floor cannot be ignored, and it demands immediate, concrete remedies to restore safety and confidence.
Pros can, in theory, offset cons if the operation commits to hardening oversight and translating credentialed intent into reliable practice. The positive value of staff training and specialized certification becomes real only when paired with stable coverage, transparent communication, and measurable accountability. Families should insist on a robust, written care plan, fixed staff assignments, real-time supervision, and explicit reporting mechanisms for incidents and concerns. A defined escalation process, scheduled progress updates, and a short-term, outcome-driven trial period with clear metrics can help determine whether the current gaps can be closed. When these elements are in place, the strengths of credentialed care align with safer, more predictable outcomes.
Decision guidance: Androscoggin Up-Support Solutions is a viable choice for families prepared to demand rigorous oversight and accountability, particularly when a resident benefits from staff with formal certifications and a framework that emphasizes clinical qualifications. It is not, however, the best match for those requiring uninterrupted, high-level supervision or a spotless safety record. If this option is pursued, conduct a thorough on-site tour focused on supervision dynamics, observe caregiver-resident interactions, and ask for concrete data on staffing ratios, incident reporting, and care-plan adherence. Demand written policies covering responses to concerns, rights protections, and contingency staffing. With disciplined oversight and explicit performance expectations, this community can deliver capable care; without those safeguards, alternatives with proven safety histories should take precedence.





8 Key Indicators That Suggest It May Be Time to Transition from Assisted Living to Skilled Nursing Care
Vibrant Senior Living: A Comprehensive Guide for Active Older Adults
When to Transition from Assisted Living to Memory Care: Key Indicators, Steps, and Finding the Right Community