Overall impression: Reviews of Stonebrook Healthcare Center are highly mixed and contain both strong praise for rehabilitative services and serious, repeated safety and communication concerns. Many reviewers emphasize that Stonebrook can and does provide excellent therapy-driven rehabilitation — with multiple specific positive mentions of physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy, clinicians who are knowledgeable, and doctors who follow patients closely. A significant number of families reported that residents made measurable progress and were able to return home, and staff members (including several named caregivers) were praised for compassion, motivation, and creating a family-like atmosphere. The facility is described by many as clean, light-filled, airy, and well cared-for, with friendly housekeeping and kitchen staff and meals that include vegetarian options.
Care quality and safety concerns: Counterbalancing the positive reports are multiple and serious allegations about neglect and medical errors. Reviews claim dehydration, malnutrition, medication mistakes (including reports of wrong medication resulting in severe reactions), and even death. Specific safety incidents include call buttons placed behind residents' heads, food placed out of reach causing falls, improper handling of belongings (glasses taken, delayed returns), and allegations that staff lied or covered up problems. Multiple reviewers stated that clinical mistakes and delays resulted in rehospitalization (for example, respiratory infections) or required further evaluation elsewhere; one review reported a Stanford reevaluation that found neglect. Several reviewers mentioned involvement of attorneys or legal concern. These reports point to potentially critical lapses in basic care and clinical oversight for a subset of patients.
Staffing, responsiveness, and communication: A frequent theme connecting many negative reports is understaffing and long delays responding to call bells. Families reported CNAs and nurses being stretched thin, slow responses to buzzers, delayed assistance with toileting or bedpans, and generalized difficulty getting staff attention. This staffing pressure is cited as a likely contributor to lapses in hygiene, missed baths, skipped or late meals, and other neglect-like experiences. Communication problems appear across multiple levels: poor telephone responsiveness, inattentive or rude admission staff, inconsistent case manager behavior, and inadequate communication between the facility’s doctors and hospitals. Several reviews describe blocked family access or staff who were unhelpful or confrontational when families sought information. Conversely, many other reviewers singled out individual staff members and disciplines for clear, empathetic communication and continuity of care, indicating variability by shift or team.
Therapy and rehabilitation experience: The strongest, most consistent positive theme is rehabilitation. Many reviewers specifically praised PT/OT/ST staff for being excellent, compassionate, and effective. For families whose loved ones experienced good outcomes, Stonebrook delivered motivating, goal-driven therapy resulting in discharge home. However, a number of reviews contradict that experience, reporting that therapy was not sufficiently rehabilitative, that patients were not mobilized or kept in bed during rehab, or that therapy staff lacked compassion. This split suggests uneven delivery — high-quality rehab is available but may not be universal for all patients or shifts.
Facility, amenities, and environment: Most reviewers describe the physical plant as clean, cozy, and bright, though also older and plain rather than luxurious. Several practical problems were reported: broken air conditioning, cold nights, crank beds that required families to rent power beds, and encouragement to bring personal TVs and phones because of outages. Parking and access were called difficult in multiple reviews. Some reviewers praised the welcoming atmosphere and friendly greetings, while others described the environment as dark, uninviting, or poorly maintained in areas. Entertainment and activity offerings were described as limited by some families, with TV outages and idle residents noted; others mentioned pleasant mealtimes and friendly kitchen staff.
Administration, admissions, and billing: There are repeated complaints about admissions staff being rude or unprofessional, and about confusing or excessive daily charges raised by some families. Administrative responsiveness appears uneven: some reviewers report case managers and admins who were difficult to reach or unhelpful, while others describe good post-discharge support (home nursing and therapy) and positive interactions. Issues with belongings, laundry, and delayed returns of personal items were frequently cited as administrative failings that deeply upset families.
Patterns and implications: The overall pattern is one of significant variability — Stonebrook demonstrates strong rehabilitative capabilities and many compassionate staff members, yet multiple reviews report severe and potentially dangerous lapses in basic care, medication handling, and responsiveness. The negative reports often align with common systemic problems like understaffing and poor communication, which can produce both near-term safety events (falls, missed meds, dehydration) and long-term harm. Positive reports emphasize effective therapy, clean spaces, and particular staff who deliver excellent care. This split suggests that experiences may depend heavily on specific units, shifts, or staff present during a resident’s stay.
Recommendations for families considering Stonebrook: Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s strong rehabilitation reputation and clean, pleasant environment against the reported safety and communication issues. Recommended actions before admitting a loved one include: touring the unit during different times of day and on weekends to observe staffing and response times; asking about nurse-to-resident and CNA staffing ratios and turnover; requesting specifics on medication administration and incident reporting policies; asking how they handle personal belongings and laundry; verifying emergency/transfer procedures and whether diagnostic imaging is routinely performed prior to discharge when indicated; checking recent inspection, incident, and staffing records; and asking for references from families whose relatives recently completed rehab successfully. Given the range of reports — from exemplary rehab outcomes to allegations of neglect and severe medical errors — careful, specific due diligence is warranted.
