Overall sentiment across the reviews is strongly positive, with a consistent emphasis on compassionate, attentive caregiving and a clean, comfortable, well-maintained environment. The most frequently praised elements are the staff — described repeatedly as caring, warm, and willing to go above and beyond — and the quality of the memory-care program. Multiple reviewers highlighted that staff take a genuine interest in residents, provide individualized attention (a benefit of the facility’s smaller size), and maintain strong continuity of care through an on-site physician, nursing team, and psychiatrist. Several families felt well supported through difficult times, noting good hospice coordination and thoughtful gestures after a resident’s death. The property itself is commonly described as attractive, modern, bright, and spotless, with well-kept grounds and sunny rooms. The facility’s sanitation rating (100.0 cited in reviews) and proactive upkeep (for example, storm preparations) reinforce the impression of high operational standards for many residents and families.
Dining and activities are another prominent positive theme. Many reviewers mention chef-prepared meals, multiple dining options (dining room or in-room), and a broad array of activities and outings — from Bible study and flower-arranging to exercise classes and field trips — that contribute to an engaged community life. Additional conveniences such as on-site laundry, hairdresser services, and regular engagement from community staff (Community Engagement Director) are appreciated. The small, intimate scale of the community is framed as an advantage by many families because it supports individualized care, close communication, and a family-like atmosphere that gives relatives peace of mind.
Despite these strengths, a number of recurring concerns and contradictory accounts appear across the reviews. Several reviewers reported a decline in quality associated with a change in ownership: mentions include cheaper outside vendors for therapy/podiatry, major rate hikes, and a sense that service standards have eroded. Some families described unprofessional behavior from management or particular staff members, with a few strong negative accounts alleging rude or lazy staff and privacy issues. There is at least one serious sanitation complaint alleging cockroaches and unsanitary conditions — a direct contradiction to the many other comments praising cleanliness — which suggests variability in either specific areas/times or differing perceptions and experiences.
Communication and operational consistency emerge as mixed themes. Many reviewers praise clear, supportive communication and regular updates; others experienced unanswered messages, chaotic months with shift-report gaps, or blunt/insensitive late-night notifications (including about a resident’s death). Emergency response time was called out once as 22 minutes, and there are reports of hospice coordination problems in a few instances (delays, and one report of a med tech overruling hospice), indicating that clinical coordination can vary by case. Several reviewers also note that the facility lacks on-site skilled nursing level care, making it less suitable for residents with high or escalating medical needs. Room-size and furnishing concerns appear occasionally (small or unfurnished rooms), and some families feel pricing has become disproportionate to value because of recent rate increases and perceived cost-cutting measures (for example, extremely thin toilet paper mentioned as an emblematic complaint).
Patterns specific to memory care are generally positive: staff trained for Alzheimer’s, regular family updates, continuity of care, and a relatively small memory unit (16–20 residents) were cited as advantages. A counterpoint in a few reviews is that some memory-care residents are described as not interactive or not vocal, which may reflect resident population characteristics more than the program quality. Activities were praised overall, but several reviewers also said activity quality is inconsistent or not as robust as expected, and at least one family expressed disappointment wanting more engagement.
In summary, Summit Place of Kings Mountain is frequently recommended and lauded for its caring staff, strong memory-care capabilities, attractive and clean facility, and engaging programs. Many families report peace of mind, reliable clinical support, and a welcoming community atmosphere. However, reviewers also document important areas to probe further before committing: reports of declining service after ownership changes, episodic management or staffing unprofessionalism, variability in communication and emergency responsiveness, an allegation of unsanitary conditions, inconsistent food quality over time, and lack of skilled nursing. Prospective families should weigh the facility’s strengths in compassionate, individualized assisted living and memory care against those operational and management concerns. When evaluating Summit Place, ask specifically about current ownership and vendor contracts, staffing levels and turnover, emergency response procedures, hospice coordination protocols, recent sanitation inspections, current sample menus, activity schedules and engagement metrics, and whether there are plans for further rate increases or service changes. These targeted questions will help clarify whether the positive patterns seen in many reviews align with the facility’s present-day operations and your loved one’s needs.
