Stonehaven Senior Living

Overall sentiment across the reviews is sharply polarized: many reviewers describe Stonehaven Senior Living as a place with caring staff, improving management under new ownership, good food, active programming, and reasonable pricing, while a significant portion of reviewers allege serious care, safety, cleanliness, and management problems. The volume and variety of both positive and negative comments point to an institution in transition—some long-term positive features persist (location, amenities, long-standing presence) even as operational problems and a recent ownership change create mixed experiences for residents and families.

Care quality is a primary theme with highly divergent reports. Numerous reviews praise specific caregivers, CNAs, a head nurse, and administrative staff (notably a director named Crystal) as compassionate, dedicated, and responsive. Physical therapy and daily care needs are cited as being met well in several accounts, and some families say their loved ones thrive with activities and care. Conversely, many reviewers describe neglectful care: inadequate hygiene assistance (teeth brushing, nail care), missed medications, residents left with food in their mouths, slow responses to falls or emergencies, weight loss tied to illness, and at least one allegation of a resident dying soon after move-in. These conflicting reports suggest inconsistent caregiving quality that may vary shift to shift, depending on staffing and individual employees.

Staffing, management, and communication are other strongly recurring topics. Several reviewers note understaffing, frequent caregiver call-outs, high staff turnover, and times when employees appear idle or inattentive. Positive reports indicate newer ownership has brought renewed energy, remodeling, and better communication in some cases, but negatives include poor management of repairs, confusing or messy maintenance processes, rent increases that hurt fixed-income residents, and family complaints about not being treated well. Multiple reviewers requested or called for state investigation and cited negligent or unprofessional behavior—language that indicates serious family concerns even if some staff members are singled out as excellent.

Facility condition and cleanliness show a wide range of impressions. Positive comments mention clean, neat spaces, a bright facility with lots of light, and effective remodeling efforts. On the other hand, several reviews consistently call out pest problems (cockroaches, spiders), persistent urine and chemical smells, dirty rooms and public bathrooms, and instances where bug reports were ignored. Specific maintenance complaints include stoves not working, water leaks, glue pulled from tiles, false smoke alarms, and messy repairs. These concrete incidents, paired with infestation and odor complaints, create tangible red flags regarding sanitation and building maintenance for prospective families.

Dining and activities again produce mixed feedback. Many reviewers praise the food and a “fab kitchen,” and highlight strong activities—holiday events, outings, cards/dominoes rooms, and volunteer involvement that bring joy to residents. Simultaneously, other reviewers report poor meal service: long waits, residents left hungry, food making people sick, and even caregivers allegedly eating off residents’ trays. This split suggests variability in dining operations or inconsistent enforcement of policies across shifts or wings of the building.

Safety and security concerns appear repeatedly. Aside from pest and cleanliness issues, reviewers mention smoke alarms going off unnecessarily, residents being able to leave the facility too easily, thefts (a phone reported stolen), and general worries about inadequate supervision. Temperature control issues—reports of the building being very cold at times and uncomfortably warm at others—also affect resident comfort and safety. At least one reviewer explicitly called for a state investigation and cited neglect, amplifying these safety concerns.

A clear pattern is the facility’s wide variability: many reviews describe a positive trajectory under new ownership—remodeling, renewed staff morale, and happier residents—while others recount legacy problems or recent serious lapses. Several reviewers explicitly urge caution, saying they would not place loved ones here, while others say their family members receive excellent care and they would recommend the facility. This bifurcation suggests that experiences differ dramatically depending on timing (pre- vs post-ownership change), the specific unit or care team, and possibly which wings of the building are remodeled or better staffed.

For prospective residents or families, the dominant takeaway is to verify current conditions in person and to probe specific concerns raised in the reviews. Concrete questions to ask during a visit include: what pest-control measures and recent inspection results are available; current staff-to-resident ratios for day and night shifts; examples of recent maintenance/repair logs; policies on medication administration and fall response; recent ownership/management changes and resulting staffing plans; and how rent increases are handled for fixed-income residents. Observe mealtimes, housekeeping routines, staff-resident interactions, and whether residents seem engaged during activities. Also request references from current families and any recent state inspection reports.

In short, Stonehaven Senior Living produces strongly mixed impressions. There are documented strengths—compassionate staff members, an improving facility and activities program, helpful administrative figures, and affordability—but also repeated, serious complaints about infestation, sanitation, maintenance failures, inconsistent care, understaffing, and management/communication lapses. The facility may be improving under new ownership in some respects, but the persistent and specific negative allegations mean families should perform careful, up-to-date due diligence before deciding to place a loved one there.