The reviews for 4 Seasons Senior Living Lewisville I are sharply divided, producing a mixed but highly specific picture. Many families praise the hands-on caregivers, clear communication from staff, and the small, home-like environment. At the same time, a number of serious operational and management concerns are reported, including unexpected fees, questionable business practices, staffing shortfalls, and safety or licensing issues. The contrast between strong praise for individual caregivers and troubling reports about policies or facility practices is a dominant theme across the reviews.
Care quality is described in two distinct ways. Several reviewers emphasize outstanding, compassionate caregivers who know residents well, provide attentive, personalized care, and communicate effectively with families. These reviewers report high continuity of care and say staff advocate for residents, go extra miles to accommodate needs, and deliver high-quality support beyond what they expected from a small group home. Conversely, other reviewers report neglectful behaviors (for example, threats to leave a resident in bed all day) and unfriendly or rude interactions. These negative care experiences appear to be concentrated in specific incidents and some shifts, creating an inconsistent overall picture of day-to-day caregiving.
Staffing and safety are recurring concerns. Multiple reviewers report understaffing, lack of 24/7 active coverage, and allegations that caregivers sleep during overnight shifts. Those reports raise safety and supervision questions—especially for residents with memory impairment or higher care needs. Several reviews specifically state the home is not licensed for memory care and that staff lack dementia training or safeguards, making it inappropriate for residents with memory-related conditions. Conversely, others note reliable night staff and trusted caregivers, which suggests staffing quality and coverage may fluctuate by shift or over time.
Management, pricing, and business practices attract considerable praise and criticism. Positive comments include that the owner is reachable, helpful, and that supervisors are responsive. Families appreciated that staff arranged multiple tours and made them comfortable. However, serious complaints include unexpected extra charges (an additional monthly fee for assistance with eating), a reported mandatory leather recliner purchase, and at least one account of a deposit not being refunded. One reviewer described the owner as money-driven or sneaky. There are also reports of inconsistent handling of complaints—some issues were addressed, others ignored—contributing to distrust among some families.
Facility condition and amenities are described as mostly clean and small/home-like, which many families found comforting. Nevertheless, several reviewers mention maintenance problems, such as broken bathroom fixtures and other repair needs, indicating that while the facility can be tidy, there are areas requiring upkeep. Dining received generally positive notes from some family members who said their loved ones liked the food and that staff made extra accommodations.
Overall sentiment is divided: a significant portion of reviewers highly recommend the home because of the individualized attention, strong caregiver relationships, and good communication, but another portion strongly advises against it due to management practices, hidden costs, understaffing, safety concerns, and lack of memory-care licensing. The most consistent positives are the quality of certain caregivers and the small, familiar atmosphere; the most consistent negatives are financial/contractual complaints, staffing shortfalls, and dementia-care suitability.
For prospective families the reviews point to clear due-diligence actions: verify current licensing (especially for memory care if needed), ask explicitly about overnight and 24/7 active staffing and how sleep shifts are handled, get all fees and requirements in writing (including policies about furniture purchases and refund/ deposit terms), inspect the physical condition of the house, and request references from current families about recent experiences and complaint resolution. Because reviews reflect both very positive personal caregiving experiences and serious administrative or safety concerns, these concrete checks will help determine whether the facility is a good fit for an individual resident's needs.
