Overall sentiment across these review summaries is highly polarized but leans strongly negative. While a subset of reviewers highlight real positives — notably private, comfortable and spacious apartments, occasional praise for competent and caring nursing staff, enjoyable desserts, a country setting, and very low cost compared to other options — a substantial number of reviews raise serious and recurring concerns about care quality, cleanliness, safety, management, and communication. The frequency and severity of the negative reports are significant enough to suggest systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.
Care quality and clinical oversight are major themes. Although a few reviewers mention caring nursing staff, many more allege neglect: residents reportedly are not seen by doctors, psychiatric evaluations are absent, paperwork and clinical records are described as missing, and some reviews claim a general lack of appropriate nursing care. These allegations are tied to perceived neglect of residents and statements urging potential families to avoid the facility. The contradiction between some positive comments about nursing staff and numerous accusations of inadequate care suggests inconsistent standards of care or significant variability depending on unit, staff on duty, or timing.
Staffing, workplace culture, and management practices receive repeated criticism. Reviewers report high turnover among both staff and residents, which often correlates with unstable care. Several accounts describe rude nurses, unresponsive office personnel, unanswered phones, and poor communication with families. Multiple reports allege serious management and payroll problems — including not paying employees for hours worked and payments not deposited into proper accounts — and some reviewers assert that new ownership has worsened conditions. There are also claims that the facility is a poor place to work, which can exacerbate recruitment and retention problems and further undermine resident care.
Facility conditions and housekeeping are another consistent concern. While some reviewers describe the building as spacious and clean and praise private apartments, many others report extreme sanitation problems: bed bugs and other insect infestations, strong smells of urine and feces, trash outdoors, rooms and bedding not cleaned on schedule, and general “gross” conditions. These conflicting descriptions point to uneven housekeeping performance or deterioration over time. Pest infestations and poor cleaning have direct implications for resident health and infection control.
Dining and activities show a mixed but problematic picture. Desserts are frequently singled out as very good, and a few reviewers note organized activities such as weekly Walmart shopping trips and transportation to doctors. However, opposing reports claim the food is horrible or inedible and that transportation is not provided. This inconsistency suggests that services may vary by shift, day, or which staff are present, and families should verify current practices in person.
Safety and security issues are among the most alarming themes. Multiple reviewers allege theft of residents’ belongings (CDs, DVDs, other items), intrusion into mail and rooms, fights among residents, drug activity (including mentions of meth), and a general sense that the facility may be unsafe for residents or the public. These are serious accusations that, if accurate, indicate critical lapses in supervision, room security, and resident screening. Several reviewers go as far as saying the facility should be shut down, which underscores the severity of their concerns.
Patterns that emerge from these summaries include strong polarization (some positive, many severe negatives), apparent deterioration or change after ownership changes (several reviewers mention new ownership being worse), and inconsistent delivery of services (transportation, meals, housekeeping, and medical oversight). Given the gravity of the negative reports — especially those alleging neglect, missing medical oversight, infestations, theft, drug activity, and payroll/administrative malpractice — these reviews warrant caution.
If considering Stoney Ridge Village, prospective residents and families should perform thorough due diligence: visit multiple times at varied hours, inspect rooms and common areas for cleanliness and pests, ask for current state inspection reports and management’s responses to citations, confirm medical and psychiatric oversight protocols, verify transportation and activity schedules in writing, speak with multiple families and staff, and inquire about staffing ratios, turnover rates, and payroll/ownership practices. The mixed nature of the reviews means some residents may have good experiences, particularly if they receive attentive staff support, but the volume and seriousness of negative allegations make independent verification essential before placement.
