Lakewood Group in Brooklyn Park, MN

Pros

• The staff and therapists provide a positive experience.
• They accept most major insurances.
• The office staff are helpful and supportive.
• The receptionist is warm, welcoming, and efficient.
• Dr. Caldwell is wonderful at her job.

Cons

• They alleged the therapist used their information for financial gain and breached doctor-patient confidentiality.
• They described billing as inconsistent and said they were charged immediately for out-of-network status.
• They characterized scheduling as disorganized, with late virtual links and poor communication about appointments.
• They experienced long wait times due to platform changes and paid for time that could not be used.
• They felt they were misdiagnosed with ADHD for many years and that clinicians did not listen.
• They reported poor responsiveness, noting multiple voicemails left with no return calls.

Review

Lakewood Group in Brooklyn Park, MN is best suited for adults and families who want approachable, clinician-focused mental health care and who can tolerate some administrative growing pains in exchange for warm, personable therapists and broad insurance acceptance. The reviews reveal a core of capable clinicians and a receptionist who delivers a welcoming first impression, alongside a general sense that the practice can provide real support when care is found to fit. This is not a sterile, corporate experience; it is a locally practiced model where the human element, empathy, listening, and reassurance, often shows up as the strongest asset. For someone who values genuine bedside manner and access to a range of major-insurance options, this venue can be a workable starting point.

Those who should consider alternatives are clear: anyone for whom privacy and airtight confidentiality are non-negotiable, anyone who cannot tolerate billing variability, or anyone who needs absolute scheduling reliability with timely communication. A pattern of billing inconsistencies, missed or late virtual links, and difficulty getting timely responses from staff undermines trust for families managing sensitive issues. If consistency, predictability, and traceable administrative processes are essential to the model of care, it makes sense to look at other clinics that foreground systems and transparency before choosing Lakewood Group.

The principal pros, the reasons some families stay and some clinicians earn high regard, do offer real value, and they partly offset the persistent administrative concerns. Several reviews praise the staff for being supportive and the clinicians as genuinely capable, with one reviewer calling the team “absolutely lovely” and specifically highlighting Dr. Caldwell as excellent. The reception staff, exemplified by Amanda, are described as warm, welcoming, and efficient, which helps patients feel at ease at the outset. Importantly, the practice appears to accept most major insurance plans, reducing potential out-of-pocket volatility for ongoing therapy. When care aligns with a patient’s goals and a clinician’s approach, the human warmth and professional competence can create meaningful therapeutic moments that families remember.

Those positives, however, are tempered by clear, recurring cons that cannot be dismissed. The most troubling is a documented breach of patient confidentiality, where a clinician allegedly disclosed information for financial gain, followed by an admission and refund. That single incident, when verified, shatters trust and should be a non-negotiable red flag for anyone evaluating confidentiality safeguards. Beyond that, several reviewers report billing unpredictability, including shifts in network status and surprise bills that arrive after coverage changes, creating stress for families already navigating mental health care decisions. Scheduling is another recurring pain point: virtual sessions arriving late, long look-it-up delays, repeated rescheduling, and inconsistent communication about appointment logistics. The cumulative effect is a perception that time, money, and care are not consistently coordinated.

Disorganization and uneven communication compound the risk. In one case, a patient endured a delayed link and a subsequent platform switch that forced a 30-minute wait, an experience many would equate with paying for time not spent in session. Attempts to obtain receipts or follow-up information are described as frustrating, with some staff appearing agitated or unresponsive. There is also a concerning note about a misdiagnosis at a younger age, followed by a later re-evaluation that corrected the diagnosis; such experiences underscore the importance of careful, ongoing assessment and transparent care plans. Taken together, these patterns suggest that while Lakewood Group can deliver high-quality therapeutic relationships, the administrative engine driving the practice sometimes undermines the therapeutic value.

For decision-makers, the practical path is clear. If choosing Lakewood Group, verify upfront how confidentiality is safeguarded, and request a written policy that outlines who can access information and under what circumstances. Ask for a concrete billing workflow: what constitutes in-network status, when bills are issued, and who is the point of contact for accounting questions. Probe scheduling reliability: can telehealth links be guaranteed on the day and time of the appointment, and how are last-minute changes handled? It is prudent to request a trial period with a single dedicated contact person for care coordination and follow-up, ensuring there is a feedback loop to address issues quickly. In parallel, compare alternatives, other local practices with stronger QA processes, clearer billing practices, and more robust confidentiality controls, and bring concrete questions to conversations with any prospective clinician.

Bottom line: Lakewood Group offers genuine therapeutic potential through compassionate staff, capable clinicians, and broad insurance acceptance, making it a reasonable option for those prioritizing the human side of mental health care. However, the combination of a confirmed confidentiality breach risk, billing and scheduling instability, and signs of organizational disarray creates a friction that cannot be ignored. Families with low tolerance for administrative risk or with urgent needs for precise diagnoses and predictable service should seriously evaluate other providers first. For those who proceed, enter with a clear expectations framework, insist on written policies, and maintain vigilant oversight of appointments and charges, because the care itself may be solid, but the governance surrounding it must prove equally reliable.