Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans positive with important qualifications. The most consistently praised aspects are the outdoor environment and the staff. Multiple reviewers highlight beautiful grounds, well-maintained exterior spaces, outdoor seating areas, and a wrap-around deck; these features contribute to a pleasant campus feel and good outdoor opportunities for residents. Internally, many reviewers describe comfortable rooms and buildings with character, and several specifically praise Building 2 as having wonderful staff and an especially positive environment.
Care quality and staff performance are the strongest recurring themes. Reviewers repeatedly emphasize friendly, welcoming staff who treat residents with dignity and respect and "like family." Caregivers are described as attentive and accommodating; examples include staff being willing to prepare simple alternative foods (e.g., sandwiches) if a resident dislikes the main menu, and continuity of staffing where caregivers stay assigned to one building, which residents and family members appreciated. The presence of regular personal-care services such as hairdresser and podiatrist visits, and an active activities team, are also cited as positives that support resident well-being and social engagement.
However, there are notable and recurring negatives that potential residents and families should consider. Administrative and billing issues are a specific concern: one reviewer reported being overcharged after providing a 30-day notice and not receiving prorated fees, with a lack of written documentation initially complicating resolution. Although the facility later admitted the mistake and corrected the amount, the experience raised alarms about billing transparency and the ethics of charging vulnerable patients. This is a concrete pattern that prospective residents should clarify in advance and monitor closely.
Facility condition and internal maintenance show variability across reviews. While exterior grounds and some buildings are well maintained, other accounts describe dated interiors, a persistent "old" smell, drab rooms, dirty carpet, and specific maintenance problems such as a broken toilet seat and lack of basic supplies (toilet paper). These issues led at least one reviewer to describe their experience as depressing and to explicitly not recommend the facility. This split suggests that upkeep and housekeeping quality may differ between buildings or over time, so an in-person inspection of the specific building/unit under consideration is advisable.
Dining and activities produce mixed feedback. Several reviewers enjoyed meals and breakfasts and praised the social dining experience, while others disliked the food quality or variety; however, staff willingness to accommodate simple requests was noted as mitigating for some. Similarly, an active activities team and opportunities for social connections, making "many sweet friends," hairdresser and podiatrist visits are strong positives for social health. Conversely, one review described very little activities and a general lack of engagement, reinforcing the impression that programming quality may vary by building or timeframe.
In summary, Stonehenge Senior Living receives strong marks for staff responsiveness, compassion, and for its attractive grounds and outdoor amenities. These strengths create a familial atmosphere for many residents and families and support social connection and continuity of care. Important caveats are variability in interior maintenance, cleanliness, and programming across buildings, plus a documented billing dispute that underscores the need for clear written agreements and close attention to invoices. Prospective residents should prioritize touring the specific building/unit they are considering, ask detailed questions about billing/prorating and documentation, and confirm housekeeping and activity schedules to ensure their expectations align with the particular location within the Stonehenge community.
