Overall sentiment in the reviews for The Highlands at Brighton is highly polarized, with distinct clusters of very positive and very negative experiences. Positive comments concentrate on the rehabilitation and certain clinical units where therapists, nurses, and medical providers are described as excellent, compassionate, and effective at improving patients’ conditions. Negative comments are numerous and often severe, focusing on direct-care failures, chronic understaffing, communication breakdowns, safety lapses, and problematic facility management. The pattern suggests that quality of care varies widely by unit, shift, and individual staff members, producing sharply divergent family experiences.
Care quality and clinical services: Rehabilitation services and several clinical staff (including therapists, some RNs, and patient care techs) receive repeated praise. Reviewers describe effective rehab therapies, approachable medical providers (doctors, PAs, NPs), and notable recoveries attributed to skilled care in certain units. At the same time, many reviews document missed or delayed clinical treatments—examples include missed nebulizer treatments, a PICC dressing not being changed for days, malfunctioning portable oxygen tanks, and medication errors. Those lapses are not isolated: some resulted in infection, sores, readmissions to hospital, and in at least one account contributed to a patient’s death. Thus, while the facility has demonstrable clinical strengths, failures in basic medical follow-through are frequent enough to be a major concern.
Direct-care staff, responsiveness, and hygiene: The most consistent criticism involves the aide and nurse aides’ responsiveness and behavior. Numerous reviews describe long waits for assistance (bathroom help delayed for hours), ignored call bells, patients left in bed or sitting in soiled clothing, and inadequate perineal care. Families reported aides laughing at requests, being distracted by phones, or outright rude and dismissive. Specific distressing incidents include patients left sitting in waste, bedpan spills on sheets, and staff failing to elevate feet as instructed. These issues are strongly linked by reviewers to chronic understaffing—one reviewer reported one nurse for 30 patients—leading to care omissions and painful transfers that can worsen outcomes.
Safety, outcomes, and serious incidents: Multiple reviewers tie understaffing and neglect to concrete harms: pressure sores, infections (including concerns of bacterial infection from bedpan incidents), rehospitalizations following care lapses, and at least one death mentioned in the context of alleged neglect. Call bells not answered or reportedly shut off remotely, falls, lack of adequate fall-prevention measures (e.g., missing rails), and improperly handled transfers are recurring safety themes. Theft and loss of personal items (clothing, slippers, wrist sling) and laundry mismanagement are additional safety/quality-of-life issues some families encountered.
Facilities, cleanliness, and amenities: Reports about the physical plant are mixed. Several families praise clean, bright common spaces, outdoor patios, active programming spaces, and well-kept lounges. Others report maintenance failures—bath leaks, bad smells from sinks/toilets left unaddressed for weeks, outdated or prison-like rooms, and broken equipment. The divergence again suggests variability across wings or over time: some areas are described as immaculate and cheerful, while others feel ghetto, drab, or unsanitary.
Management, communication, and administration: A prominent theme in negative reviews is poor communication and problematic leadership. Families report that calls go unanswered, concerns are minimized or deflected by administrators, and problems are not corrected despite meetings. Specific allegations include administrators passing the buck, a director of nursing accused of policy manipulation and intimidation, and an instance where an apology accompanied a minor monetary offer ($50) perceived as inadequate. Several reviewers felt the administration prioritized money/operations over resident well-being. Conversely, a few reviewers note helpful social workers, effective RN managers, and positive interactions with reception staff, indicating inconsistency in administrative responsiveness.
Dining, activities, and quality of life: Opinions on food vary widely—some reviewers praise holiday meals and say residents enjoy food, while many others call the food horrendous or inconsistent with orders not being replaced when wrong. Activities and social programming earn positive mentions in multiple reviews (pianist, exercise programs, social events), and when staff are engaged they create a warm, family-like atmosphere and meaningful resident engagement. Memory care gets mixed feedback: some families appreciate compassionate dementia care and specialized neuro-behavioral staff, while others report theft, terrible food, and poor staff attitude in memory units.
Overall patterns and implications: The reviews indicate a facility capable of delivering excellent rehab and skilled nursing care under the right conditions—specific staff and units receive high praise for clinical competence and compassion. However, widespread and recurrent reports of understaffing, ignored call bells, hygiene failures, medication and treatment lapses, poor communication, and management shortcomings create a significant risk profile. The variability of experiences—often described as 'hit or miss'—means outcomes appear contingent on which staff are assigned, the unit, and the timing of the admission. For prospective residents and families, the dominant themes to weigh are the facility’s strong rehabilitation offerings and some exemplary staff against the systemic issues (staffing, responsiveness, and administrative accountability) that have, by multiple accounts, led to harm, hospitalization, loss of personal items, and severe distress for families.
