Overall sentiment across the review summaries is highly mixed and polarized, with some reviewers describing the facility as compassionate and effective for rehabilitation while others report serious neglect, safety violations, and unacceptable outcomes. Several reviewers praise individual caregivers and mention specific nurses by name (Stacey, Trisha, Danielle) and attribute positive rehab outcomes and restored independence to the staff. Concurrently, there are multiple alarming reports describing dehydration, hypothermia, failures to feed or properly hydrate residents, emergency ambulance calls, an attempted revival with resulting broken ribs, and even a death; these reports include strong language urging others not to bring loved ones to the facility.
Care quality and clinical safety show a pronounced split. Positive accounts emphasize attentive, compassionate direct-care staff who go above and beyond, successful short-term rehabilitation stays, and visible improvements under recent management changes. Those positive reviews often note a more personal, small-community atmosphere where residents "never feel lost or overlooked." In contrast, negative accounts allege neglect (insufficient hydration and feeding), poor monitoring of vital needs (high blood pressure leading to an adverse event in at least one report), and poor outcomes culminating in emergency interventions. Communication failures are repeatedly called out—families were reportedly not notified about serious events (for example, a dialysis emergency), and some reviewers characterize staff as rude or unresponsive.
Facility condition and environment are recurrent concerns. Multiple reviewers describe an old, outdated building with narrow hallways, carts blocking access to patient rooms, small double-occupancy rooms with shared bathrooms, and limited TV access. Several commenters described the layout as feeling unsafe. There are also explicit allegations of fire hazards and other safety issues, and reviewers cite health department write-ups, multiple safety fines, and at least one HIPAA-related incident (described as a firing and rehiring event). These regulatory and safety flags are significant patterns that appear alongside the subjective impressions of cleanliness and organization (some calling the place "nasty").
Staffing, leadership, and management present another clear pattern of inconsistency. Many reviews single out direct-care staff and some nurses as exemplary and compassionate, while other reviews criticize supervisory roles—specifically ADON leadership—and describe management communication as poor or negligent. Importantly, several reviewers note a recent change in administration and ownership, reporting rapid, positive improvements in care, staffing, and facility management under new leadership. Comments such as "lots of great changes over the past few months," "new admin staff," and "rapid improvements" suggest that the facility's performance may have been improving for some time, but the timeframe and consistency of those improvements vary across reviewers.
Activities, therapy, and rehabilitation are also inconsistent in reviewers' experiences. Some residents who went for rehab report successful, restorative care that allowed them to regain independence and return home. Others explicitly report no physical therapy or activities and criticize the facility for failing to provide basic rehabilitative services. Dining and feeding are not described in standard terms, but the reports that residents "could not feed himself," were "hand fed," and had "fluids given by hand" raise concerns about mealtime assistance practices and monitoring of hydration, rather than comments about food quality or menu options.
Taken together, the reviews portray a facility with a small, close-knit environment and caring frontline staff in many cases, but also with significant historical problems in building condition, safety, leadership, communication, and clinical management. The presence of health department write-ups, multiple safety fines, a HIPAA incident, and very serious clinical allegations (dehydration, hypothermia, emergency events, and at least one death described by a reviewer) are major red flags that coexist with reports of recent administrative improvements and strong caregiver performance.
For families considering StoneRidge Health Care, the pattern suggests due diligence is essential. Verify the facility's current regulatory status and any recent or resolved citations, ask specifically about changes since the reported new administration/ownership, and request documentation of staffing levels, recent inspection results, and quality-improvement initiatives. When possible, visit at different times of day to gauge staffing responsiveness, cleanliness, safety (hallways, exits, clutter), and activity or therapy offerings. The mixed reviews indicate that experiences can vary widely depending on timing, specific unit or staff on duty, and whether the stay was before or after recent administrative changes.
