Overall sentiment in these reviews is mixed but strongly weighted toward serious concerns. Several reviewers praise the physical appearance of The Highlands Living Center—commenting on good, even spectacular, food, an attractive and well-landscaped facility, impressive common areas, cottage-style living options, and convenient dining and social activities. Multiple summaries note friendly staff and describe some residents’ day-to-day life as easy when their needs are met. These positive aspects suggest the campus and programming have potential and can provide an agreeable environment under the right circumstances.
However, recurring and significant negative themes dominate many summaries and raise major quality and safety concerns. The most frequent and alarming reports are about care quality: allegations of neglect (including untreated bed sores), dehydration that required hospitalization and surgery, multiple falls leading to hospitalization, and patients left unattended. There are direct accusations of verbal abuse and disrespectful treatment (for example, aides yelling), rights violations, and an allegation that management concealed or covered up incidents. These are not isolated complaints about service quality but suggest systemic failures that have caused harm to residents in multiple accounts.
Staffing and workplace culture are consistent problem areas in the reviews. Many summaries mention high staff turnover, too many patients per staff member, and unhappy or coarse aides. Reviewers explicitly describe the facility as not a safe place to work, which correlates with the reported staffing shortages and contributes to unsafe care conditions for residents. The combination of overcrowding and low staffing levels is mentioned several times—reviewers state the facility is crowded, rooms are too small, and there is a need for either more space or fewer residents. These conditions are repeatedly linked to unsafe outcomes like falls, neglect, and hygiene problems.
Facility condition and housekeeping show a split between appearance and functionality. While reviewers praise the grounds, dining areas, cottages, and overall look, they also report practical issues: small and overcrowded rooms, needed repairs, and poor hygiene in some resident rooms with residents described as filthy. This contrast suggests that while public and communal spaces may be maintained or updated, private rooms and direct-care environments may be under-resourced or neglected.
Management and oversight emerge as critical weak points. Reviews reference a low Department of Health rating and call for an overhaul or different management. There are statements that the center 'has potential with different management,' and allegations of disorganization and even cover-up by leadership. Additionally, operational issues such as phone access being denied to residents or families and strict COVID visitation restrictions contribute to family frustration and perceptions of rights violations. The reported lack of transparency and inconsistent level of care amplify concerns about regulatory compliance and internal accountability.
Activities and social life receive more positive remarks: social clubs, events, and easy daily routines for some residents were mentioned as strengths. Dining appears to be a clear positive with multiple notes of good food and convenient dining options. Yet these favorable aspects are overshadowed by the weight of safety and care-related complaints.
In summary, the reviews present a facility with strong physical assets—attractive grounds, good dining, and some engaging programs—but with serious and recurrent deficiencies in staffing, direct care, safety, and management. The most consequential issues reported are neglect, abuse, untreated medical problems, frequent falls, and alleged administrative cover-ups. Potential residents and families should weigh the positive environment and activities against the documented risks, verify current staffing ratios and Department of Health status, ask for records of incidents and complaints, and carefully evaluate management responsiveness before making placement decisions. The reviews indicate the center could improve markedly under different management and with better staffing and oversight, but at the time of these summaries there are multiple red flags that warrant caution and further investigation.
