500 Hahnemann Trail, Pittsford, NY 14534
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
Overall Review of Highlands Living Center
Pros
The facility offers good food for residents.
The facility is nice looking and nicely landscaped.
It has potential with different management.
The Highlands at Pittsford impressed visitors with comfortable living accommodations.
The cottages provide comfortable living accommodations.
Residents can dine in a fine dining restaurant or have meals delivered to their apartment or cottage.
The support staff are very friendly and service oriented.
Cons
The director Sam is accused of covering up problems and avoiding responsibility for anything at the facility.
Residents were left with bed sores and dehydration, and falls were not properly treated, leading to hospitalizations.
An aide yelled at a resident, and the resident’s cell phone was kept out of reach after complaints about the staff.
Due to Covid, visitors were not allowed, preventing families from accessing their loved ones.
The facility is overcrowded with too many patients per staff, creating unsafe conditions for residents.
There is high staff turnover and some aides are mean or coarse, with basic rights reportedly violated.
Residents were described as filthy or poorly groomed, with neglected personal hygiene.
Review
Highlands Living Center in Pittsford is best suited for seniors who want a cottage-based, community-oriented setting with built-in social life and flexible dining options, while needing only light-to-moderate assistance. The campus layout, small, self-contained cottages near the main building, creates a home-like atmosphere where residents can maintain routines and exercise independence, with support available on demand. When care needs are modest and staff stability exists, this model can deliver comfort, engagement, and a sense of normalcy, an appealing blend for families seeking autonomy without surrendering daily support. For truly high-care needs or those prioritizing clinical oversight and rock-solid safety protocols, alternatives will likely offer greater reassurance and fewer surprises.
However, the cons across reviews are substantial and cannot be overlooked. Recurrent reports describe falls, dehydration, wounds left untreated, and hospitalizations linked to care lapses. Several accounts mention verbal abuse and limited access to loved ones, with some anecdotes of overcrowding and overtaxed staff. Frequent staff turnover compounds these problems, eroding continuity of care and trust. In this climate, the facility risks inconsistent responses to emergencies and daily needs, undermining the very independence the setting promises. For families with loved ones who require reliable supervision or whose safety cannot be compromised, these patterns argue strongly for exploring other options.
On the upside, a few reviews highlight tangible pleasures: high-quality food, friendly staff in the care ecosystem, and the ability to tailor dining, dining in a restaurant or having meals delivered to a cottage. The cottages themselves are described as comfortable, with a sense of home and opportunities for small social gatherings in on-site clubs and common spaces. When staff are present and attentive, these features can support a meaningful daily rhythm and a degree of autonomy that many seniors value. The aesthetic appeal and social infrastructure can elevate life for residents who don’t require intensive clinical intervention.
Yet the positives are offset by the risk factors and operational concerns. Observations about overcrowding, too-small spaces, and residents moving between rooms raise serious safety questions. Reports of residents wandering into other rooms, disoriented or at risk, point to gaps in supervision and boundaries. The combination of high resident numbers and infrequent staff training or consistency can translate into miscommunications, delayed care, and preventable discomfort. In short, the model rests on robust, steady leadership and frontline care; without that, even the nicest cottages and menus feel precarious.
Decision-making should hinge on a clear risk-reward calculus. If independence with social engagement, flexible dining, and a cottage lifestyle are nonnegotiable, Highlands Living Center may be worth a careful, time-bound trial, but only with verifiable assurances about staffing ratios, escalation procedures, and transparent incident reporting. Prospective residents should demand detailed evidence of daily care routines, staff continuity, and a plan for addressing concerns. It is prudent to compare with nearby facilities that offer similar independence but demonstrably stronger safety records and staff satisfaction. Without concrete assurances, the prudent move is to keep looking.
Bottom line: Highlands Living Center can deliver a home-like, socially active environment for seniors with modest care needs who prize autonomy and flexibility. For families facing repeated reports of neglect, dehydration, falls, or disrespect from staff, this community likely falls short of what is necessary to safeguard daily well-being. Alternatives that emphasize consistent supervision, smaller census, and proven safety outcomes deserve priority, even if they sacrifice some cottage-style charm. The chooser’s calculus should balance the resident’s level of need, tolerance for risk, and willingness to demand accountability before move-in.








Dementia-Related Hallucinations: Causes, Experiences, and Practical Approaches
Illuminating Insights About Alzheimer's Disease: Ten Crucial Realities
A Thorough Discussion of Medications Potentially Linked to Dementia Risk