The reviews for Summers Landing Senior Living are strongly polarized, with a clear split between families who praise daily life and activities and others who report serious failures in medical care, management, and business practices. Positive comments consistently highlight a physically clean and attractive building, good and plentiful food, clean rooms and linens, and a lively activities program. The activity director is singled out repeatedly for praise—described as friendly, caring, energetic, and someone who puts residents and visitors at ease—and regular outings (biweekly trips and weekly Walmart runs), events, and daily activities are frequently noted as strengths that improve resident quality of life.
Despite those positives, several reviews describe very serious concerns about clinical care and safety. Multiple accounts allege major medical incidents involving residents — including a femur fracture, stroke symptoms, seizures, coma, and death — with family members attributing those outcomes to neglect or inadequate care. Those reports led to urgent removal of at least one resident, complaints to the ombudsman and BBB, and calls for legal action and even for the facility to be shut down. These allegations are among the most severe themes in the reviews and indicate that some families experienced outcomes they judged unacceptable and harmful.
Staff performance and behavior are described inconsistently. On the positive side, many reviewers call staff polite, helpful, and delightful, and they praise specific employees (notably the activity director and a staff member named Sharon). Conversely, other reviewers report that care staff can be slow, unfriendly, inexperienced, or nonchalant. This variability suggests uneven staffing, training, or supervision: some residents receive attentive, high-quality interaction while others do not. Several reviews also criticized management response to incidents — for example, poor follow-through on a reported purse theft described as lip service with no investigation.
Management, billing, and communication emerge as a distinct cluster of concerns. There are complaints about unresponsive communication (emails and phone calls going unanswered), management turnover (a director leaving and limited improvement thereafter), and business practices that some families view as dishonorable or money-minded. One reviewer reports an unpaid invoice sent to collections and accuses the facility of lying about payments, creating a distinctly negative business impression. Complaints to oversight bodies were reported by multiple families, which amplifies the concerns about accountability and escalation pathways.
Facility cleanliness and pest control present a mixed picture. Several reviewers explicitly praise the facility’s cleanliness, appearance, and housekeeping (including bed linens and rooms). Yet other reviews allege pest infestations — bed bugs, cockroaches, and ants — which are serious infection control and safety issues if accurate. These contradictory statements suggest either sporadic problems that may be localized or intermittent, or differing perceptions and experiences among residents and families.
In summary, Summers Landing appears to offer many of the positive elements families look for in senior living—an attractive, clean setting, good dining, and an excellent activities program led by a highly regarded activity director. However, the presence of multiple, severe allegations concerning resident safety and medical care, inconsistent staff performance, poor incident handling, billing disputes, unresponsiveness from management, and reports of pest problems create significant red flags. Prospective residents and families should perform careful due diligence: ask for documentation of incident reports and resolutions, review staffing levels and training practices, inquire about pest-control records and infection-control policies, request references from current families, and check for any regulatory or ombudsman actions. These steps can help determine whether the positive aspects observed by some reviewers are typical and whether the serious issues reported by others have been addressed.
