1008 Sabattus Street, Lewiston, ME 04240
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Support Solutions - 1008 Sabattus Costs & Pricing
The monthly cost for a private room at Support Solutions - 1008 Sabattus is set at $4,890, which positions it competitively within the local and state context. In comparison to Androscoggin County's average of $5,286, Support Solutions offers a more affordable option for individuals seeking care. Moreover, when looking at the statewide average in Maine of $4,625, the facility remains slightly above that benchmark. This pricing structure reflects a balance between quality care and affordability, making Support Solutions a viable choice for residents considering long-term care options.
| Floor plans | Support Solutions - 1008 Sabattus | Androscoggin County | Maine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private | $4,890 | $5,286 | $4,625 |
Assisted Living communities with a similar price nearby
Overall Review of Support Solutions - 1008 Sabattus
Pros
The very best place to be CRMA certified.
Support Solutions are simply awesome!
Cons
The company is neglectful and unprofessional.
Support Solutions has been incredibly disappointing and shows a severe lack of care for its clients, leaving them unattended and vulnerable.
A disabled client was left without supervision or support, leading to a fall that reopened a head injury from surgery.
Their failure to provide consistent support or supervision creates a dangerous environment with no staff present.
It is clear that the company does not prioritize the well-being of those they are entrusted to help.
The negligence could result in far worse outcomes, according to the reviewer.
They violated a friend's rights by preventing her from hanging out.
Review
Support Solutions - 1008 Sabattus is best suited for seniors who can largely self-manage daily tasks and who have reliable external oversight, whether through family involvement or ongoing monitoring from a responsible caregiver. The community appears to work best when supervision is consistently available and when residentsâ needs stay within a light-to-moderate range. In short, it is not framed as a hands-off, high-freedom setting; it functions better for those who can tolerate gaps in formal supervision and rely on outside support to fill safety and care gaps.
Pros sit closest to staff credentials and the potential for competent medication handling, but those positives do not erase the central concerns surfaced in multiple accounts. The mention of CRMA certification points to a baseline level of formal training in medication administration, which can be valuable in reducing medication errors. A few reviews also carry strong praise for staff credentials in that area. Yet the overriding pattern in the feedback is not about technical proficiency alone but about whether reliable, consistent supervision is actually delivered. When supervision lapses occur, medication management cannot recover the day, and safety hangs in the balance.
The most damaging themes are neglect, unattended residents, and dangerous lapses in supervision. Reports describe a disabled resident being left without staff support, a fall that reopened a prior head injury, and a general sense of a âdangerous environmentâ created by inconsistent staffing. Those anecdotes fuel a clear conclusion: credentialing, anecdotal positives, and even favorable moments do not compensate for repeated failures to provide continuous oversight. Families should weigh the risk of similar incidents when considering this community, especially for residents with mobility challenges or cognitive vulnerabilities.
On the positive side, some reviewers granted high-star praise, suggesting there is value when care is present and staff are engaged. However, the variance is telling: a facility can show bright spots in care while still delivering a fragile, unpredictable experience overall. That divide creates a tough calculus for families evaluating long-term placement. The favorable testimonials cannot be assumed to represent typical day-to-day operations, and the weight of the negative experiences points to an underlying reliability problem rather than a transient shortfall.
For families actively evaluating options, several concrete steps help translate these impressions into a practical decision. First, demand a current staffing plan with exact ratios for all shifts, and request a tour during peak hours to observe how supervision is applied in real time. Second, ask for a detailed incident and loss-prevention log, plus explanations of how such events are reviewed and learned from. Third, inquire about turnover rates, training refreshers, and the on-site presence of licensed or credentialed professionals. Fourth, probe the facilityâs fall-prevention measures, emergency response times, and how residentsâ mobility or medical needs are tracked and updated. Finally, request candid conversations with residents and families about daily experiences and responsiveness.
The bottom line is clear: this community can offer competent credentialed care in theory, but the practical reality, as reflected in multiple strong warnings, raises serious safety concerns for residents who require reliable, continual supervision. For families prioritizing unwavering safety, predictability, and rapid response, alternatives should be explored. If pursuing Support Solutions, anchor the decision to a robust, verifiable supervision plan, clear escalation procedures, and a firm commitment to immediate staffing coverage whenever needs spike. Without those safeguards, the risks substantially outweigh the perceived benefits, and the option becomes one to approach with extreme diligence rather than open-ended optimism.











Comprehensive Residential Support and Assisted Living Solutions for Individuals with Disabilities
Comprehensive Supportive Living Arrangements for Adults with Disabilities
Funding and Affording Assisted Living: A Thorough Overview