537 James St., Syracuse, NY 13203
To contact a resident: (315) 476-0600
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Maxim Healthcare
Pros
Alan and Margie are very kind and helpful.- They go above and beyond to assist families through the employment process.
- They are empathetic and consistently push to get things done.
- They deserve a raise.
- Maxim Healthcare Services is a wonderful place to work.
- Maxim Healthcare Services is a great employer to work for.
- There is great communication with staff at Maxim Healthcare Services.
- Maxim Healthcare Services offers flexible hours and on-call availability.
- Employees enjoy working at Maxim Healthcare Services.
Cons
One reviewer called Maxim Healthcare Services toxic.- Another reviewer said it is the worst in the world.
- The staff are described as very unprofessional.
- An aide is described as very rude, allegedly punching the reviewer’s mother and threatening her life.
- The home health aide recruiter is described as very rude.
- The company is described as a horrible place to work, requiring hoops to jump through, payment for CPR classes, and multiple computer tests with no guaranteed job.
Review
Maxim Healthcare in Syracuse is best suited for families seeking at-home support with flexible scheduling and a responsive administrative team, where the priority is getting a care plan in motion and having access to on-call coordination. This provider appears workable for short- to mid-term arrangements where family members can actively supervise care and navigate scheduling adjustments. However, for seniors who depend on consistently high-quality, safety-first caregiving, alternatives should be seriously considered. The strongest caveat is that reliability and safety appear uneven, and serious red flags can overwhelm whatever procedural positives exist.
On the positive side, the reviews do reveal empathetic, proactive staff at times. A pair of caregivers, notably named individuals, are cited for kindness, helpfulness, and a willingness to push through barriers to get tasks completed. There is also a sense that the organization supports its workers with flexible hours and on-call availability, which can translate into better scheduling responsiveness for families when matches go well. In a tightly managed program, these elements can produce workable weeks where household routines stay intact and urgent needs are addressed promptly.
Yet the weight of the negative feedback cannot be ignored. The dominant thread across the majority of accounts is unprofessionalism and instability in the caregiving team. Descriptions range from blunt harshness to outright dangerous conduct, including a caregiver accused of assault and another incident in which personal safety was threatened. The most troubling implication is not isolated missteps but a pattern suggesting inconsistent training, screening, and accountability. For seniors who live alone or depend on caregivers for assistance with mobility, medications, and everyday safety, these risks are not marginal, they are potentially endangering.
These conflicting experiences alter the risk calculus. The pros offer a glimpse of what well-matched, compassionate staff can deliver, and the administrative side can provide scheduling flexibility when everything aligns. However, the cons, absent consistent safety monitoring, reports of aggressive behavior, and reputational concerns about staff reliability, heavily tilt the balance toward caution. When a care provider functions as the primary layer of protection for a vulnerable senior, reliability and a proven safety culture trump the occasional moment of good service. The 2.7 overall rating, compounded by multiple 1-star accounts, signals a reliability problem that families should weigh heavily.
For families weighing options, several practical steps help sharpen the decision. First, verify staff screening protocols, incident reporting procedures, and supervision plans, asking for concrete examples of how safety is enforced and how problems are escalated. Second, request a guaranteed caregiver-matching process with trial periods and written performance metrics, so mismatches do not linger. Third, compare with other local home-health providers and larger networks known for consistent caregiver training and lower incident rates. Fourth, insist on transparent communication channels, regular progress notes, and fast, documented issue resolution. Fifth, consider whether a transition plan exists to switch providers without disruption if safety or reliability fails to meet expectations.
In the end, this community offers the potential for flexible, family-centric coordination and moments of compassionate care, but the volatility of reported incidents and the absence of a consistent safety record make it a risky choice for seniors with high needs. If the choosing family can implement stringent safeguards, perform careful caregiver matching, and demand strong oversight, Maxim Healthcare can be a workable piece of a broader care strategy. Otherwise, explore alternatives that foreground dependable staffing, robust training, and a proven track record of safe in-home care. The decision hinges on safety priorities and the ability to actively manage risk in a home care setting.
Syracuse-Hancock International (4 miles away)
Exploring Nonmedical Home Care: Understanding Services, Costs, and Financial Approaches
Engaging Brain Games and Innovative Apps to Keep Senior Minds Active
Effective Strategies for Keeping Seniors' Minds Active: A Deep Dive into Brain Games and Apps