The reviews for Highland Hills Post Acute present a highly mixed and polarized picture. A recurring theme is the stark inconsistency in the quality of care and staff performance: many families and former patients praise individual nurses, aides, therapists, and specific managers by name for compassionate, attentive, and effective care, while other reviewers describe neglectful, rude, or even abusive behavior from different members of the same staff. This split suggests that outcomes and experiences depend heavily on which unit, shift, or specific caregivers the resident encounters.
Rehabilitation and therapy are recurring strengths in many reports. Numerous reviewers credit the physical and occupational therapy teams with professional, patient-focused care that enabled successful recoveries, improved mobility, and timely discharges home. Several positive stories describe remarkable post-op recoveries and excellent coordination between therapists and nursing staff. When the rehab team is engaged, families report satisfaction with clinical progress and clear communication about therapy goals.
However, substantial and serious concerns appear throughout the negative reviews. The most frequent safety and quality issues involve hygiene neglect (residents not bathed for days, unclean sheets and clothing, feces or urine left on residents), wound-care failures (inadequate cleaning, wound vac devices not replaced, infections that resulted in ER visits), and medication management problems (delayed meds, missed doses, incorrect insulin dosing, and delayed pain control). Multiple accounts document falls — sometimes repeated — with at least some instances where families report not being informed or where follow-up medical evaluation was not arranged promptly. These types of clinical failures have led some families to file formal medical neglect claims and to transfer residents out of the facility.
Staffing and responsiveness are also prominent concerns. Many reviewers report long call-bell delays, insufficient staff on shift, and aide shortages that result in basic-care lapses (use of diapers instead of bedpans, infrequent toileting, long waits for assistance). Understaffing appears linked to both the quality variations and to the frequency of neglect-type complaints. Conversely, where staffing was adequate, reviewers frequently call out the difference in care quality and show appreciation for staff dedication.
Communication and administration receive numerous critical comments. Common complaints include unreturned phone calls, hung-up calls, misleading or evasive answers from social workers and managers, and unresolved meetings. Billing and paperwork problems recur: reviewers mention Medicaid/VA form mishandling, unexpected charges, delayed or erroneous bills, alleged account sabotage, and accusations of financial mismanagement. Several families said they were given incorrect information about insurance coverage or were billed long after discharge. These administrative failures exacerbate clinical concerns and diminish family trust.
Facility-related issues are mixed. Many reviewers note that parts of the building are clean, well-maintained, and secure, with pleasant common areas and organized events. Others describe an aging facility with maintenance issues, tiny/short beds unsuitable for tall adults, noisy remodeling, and occasional filth. Food is frequently criticized as poor, cold, or unappetizing (with specific mentions such as cottage cheese and peaches or cold coffee), though some reviewers acknowledge that kitchen staff and dietitians tried to accommodate preferences when possible.
There are also extreme and alarming allegations in a minority of reports: claims of drug use by staff during breaks, a deceased resident left unattended on the floor, racial bias, threats to families, and inappropriate enforcement of visitation or COVID policies that prevented end-of-life visits. While these are not universal, their presence in multiple reviews raises concern about oversight and risk management. Several families threatened to involve attorneys or media, and a few reported filing formal complaints.
Positive patterns center on individual caregivers and specific units that deliver high-quality, empathetic care. Named staff — including nurses, aides, therapists, and some managers — are repeatedly praised for going above and beyond, being responsive, and treating residents with dignity. Hospice involvement in appropriate cases and some reliable discharge coordination are also noted. These positives suggest the facility has capable personnel and effective clinical programs when systems and staffing allow them to function properly.
In summary, Highland Hills Post Acute appears to offer strong rehabilitative services and has many capable and compassionate staff members, but the facility suffers from significant variability in care quality, recurrent staffing shortages, and troubling lapses in basic hygiene, wound care, medication management, and safety. Administrative dysfunction — poor communication, billing and paperwork errors, and inconsistent visitation policies — amplifies family frustration and distrust. Prospective residents and families should be aware of both the facility's potential strengths (especially in therapy/rehab) and the real risk of inconsistent nursing and aide care. If considering Highland Hills, visit multiple times at different hours, ask about staffing ratios and specific nursing coverage, get clear written plans for wound care and medications, and identify point people for communication and escalation. Families with high-dependency or total-care needs should be particularly cautious and consider monitoring closely or seeking facilities with consistently documented staffing and quality metrics.
