Overall impression: Reviews of The Laurels and The Haven in Highland Creek are strongly mixed. Many reviewers praise the frontline caregiving teams, the dining program, the activities calendar, and the community atmosphere, while a substantial and consistent set of reviews reports serious operational and clinical shortcomings. Positive experiences often cite compassionate direct-care staff, good food, engaging programming, clean and renovated neighborhoods, and effective therapy services. Negative experiences focus on systemic problems tied to leadership instability, chronic understaffing, medication management failures, safety incidents, billing practices, and inconsistent housekeeping/maintenance.
Staff and day-to-day care: The single most consistent positive theme is the dedication of many direct-care staff members—CNAs, dining staff, and therapists receive frequent personal praise. Multiple reviews call out specific caregivers by name and describe kind, attentive, and individualized care that made residents feel known and comfortable. Therapy and rehabilitation teams are highlighted as “game changers” in several accounts. At the same time, another consistent theme is frequent staff turnover and a reliance on outside/agency staff, which reviewers link to falling quality of care. When long-term frontline caregivers remain in place, families describe strong relationships and good outcomes. When turnover increases, families describe inconsistent care tasks, missed medications, and general loss of continuity.
Clinical safety and medication management: A major area of concern across many reviews is clinical oversight—especially medication management and timely response to emergencies. Reports include missed or late medications, wrong meds administered, pill-cutting resulting in incorrect dosing, and large numbers of pills not given. Several reviews describe consequential safety incidents: undetected urinary tract infections that led to a fall and hospitalization, long lapses in post-fall monitoring (six hours or more), and other events requiring emergency care or rehab. These incidents are commonly attributed by reviewers to understaffing, insufficient night supervision, and poor communication among clinical leaders. While some reviews note recent improvements in medication management and emergency responsiveness, the volume and severity of negative reports indicate this is a critical area of risk that families should investigate directly.
Management, communication, and billing: Many reviewers report a pattern of leadership change, autocratic or unfriendly administrators, and slow or defensive responses to family concerns. Multiple accounts allege billing problems—overbilling, double-charging, unclear point-based care levels, and additional caregiver fees—leading to frustration and distrust. Some reviewers feel there is pressure to move residents into higher levels of care (the Haven) for financial reasons, and several note that Haven appears to be more chronically understaffed and less resourced than the Laurels neighborhoods. Conversely, other reviewers report excellent, responsive sales and admissions staff and praise certain managers (names appear in positive mentions), suggesting that leadership quality has fluctuated over time and between teams.
Facilities, dining, and activities: Physical plant and programming receive frequent praise. Many reviewers like the apartment-style layouts, restaurant-style dining, generous portions, fresh fruit, healthy breakfasts, and flexible menus with 24/7 snack availability and special treats like an ice cream parlor. Renovations and upgraded neighborhoods are appreciated where completed, although some notes say renovations favor looks over function (oversized furniture, outdated kitchens/bathrooms in certain rooms, and occasional ventilation issues). Activities are broad and active—church groups, choir, men's club, crafts, bingo, outings, and purposeful programming that engages residents with past roles (libraries, desks for former professors). A recurring complaint is that some activities feel repetitive or targeted at older residents and may lack mental-stimulation options for others.
Variability and patterns: One of the strongest patterns across reviews is variability—experiences differ greatly by neighborhood, time period, and who is on shift. Many families report an excellent initial tour and smooth move-in with staff who go above and beyond, only to see service decline after leadership or key caregivers leave. Conversely, some reviewers note a turnaround when new management stabilizes staff. Memory care (The Haven) receives more negative comments about staffing and monitoring than the assisted-living neighborhoods (Laurels) in multiple reviews. Cleanliness and housekeeping are praised in many accounts but called out as problematic in others (dirty laundry, soiled linens, cobwebs, broken AC), suggesting inconsistent execution.
Conclusions and considerations: The Laurels & The Haven offer many strengths that appeal to families: strong social programming, appealing dining, therapists and rehab services, and numerous compassionate frontline staff who form meaningful bonds with residents. However, the repeated serious concerns—medication errors, falls with delayed response, high turnover, billing disputes, and inconsistent management—are significant and recurring. Prospective residents and families should prioritize detailed questions about current staffing ratios (especially nights and in The Haven), medication administration protocols, incident reporting practices, reliance on agency staff, recent leadership changes, and written clarification of point-based care fees. Visiting at different times of day, asking for references from current families, and obtaining written policies for emergency response and billing proration can help clarify whether the on-the-ground quality aligns with the positive reports or with the concerning patterns noted by many reviewers.
