The reviews for Standing Stone Care & Rehabilitation Center present a starkly polarized picture. A substantial portion of reviewers praise the facility for compassionate, attentive care, strong therapy services, and an engaging, home-like environment. Several reviewers singled out specific staff and clinical leaders (including a praised Director of Nursing, therapists, and a wound nurse named Ashley) and described top-notch nursing and therapy that produced measurable improvements in mobility, pain reduction, and wound healing. Many family members reported feeling included in care decisions, receiving good communication, enjoying the cafeteria and visiting amenities, and observing residents participating in arts, music, and volunteer-led activities. Multiple reviewers explicitly recommended the facility and said their loved ones were treated like family.
Counterbalancing these positive reports are repeated, serious allegations of neglect, clinical errors, and systemic problems. Multiple summaries describe understaffing and slow or absent responses to call lights, creating delays in basic care. There are repeated infection-control concerns — staff reportedly failing to wear gloves, questionable hygiene, and reports of UTIs and hospital transfers. Medication handling errors (including alleged double dosing) and inaccurate documentation were reported more than once. Most troubling are several accounts of life-threatening clinical failures: a feeding/assistance lapse resulting in aspiration, dehydration progressing to aspiration pneumonia, and at least one description of a necrotic bedsore that reportedly led to sepsis and death. Other distressing accounts include residents being left in feces, rooms without blankets, belongings missing after death, and family members feeling administratively ignored or given excuses by management.
The pattern in the reviews suggests substantial inconsistency in care quality and professionalism. Many reviewers name individual staff members and teams as exemplary, implying that high-quality care is delivered by particular clinicians and shifts. At the same time, other reviewers report poor experiences that appear tied to different staff, shifts, or units. This mix of high praise for individual therapists, nurses, and activity staff alongside reports of understaffed shifts, apathetic or unprofessional employees, and serious clinical breakdowns points to variability in staffing, supervision, and clinical oversight. Some reviewers explicitly say there are "a few great employees" amid "lots of not-so-good staff," which supports the interpretation that care may depend heavily on which people are on duty.
Operational and administrative concerns emerge as another major theme. Several reviewers described ineffective social services, billing disputes (such as requests for large private-pay hold fees), and administrative inaction when serious problems were raised. Communication also received mixed reviews: while many families praised updates and clear communication, others reported staff who hung up on callers, were unclear or unfriendly, or provided misleading medical information (including alleged life-support miscommunication). There are also complaints about documentation accuracy and discharge planning (including refusals of rehab or inadequate preparation for return home).
Facility-related feedback is similarly split. Numerous reviewers compliment the building as clean, pleasant, and welcoming, and they appreciated activities and visitor access. Conversely, some reviews mention a strong odor, poor food quality, and shared-room arrangements that some found limiting. Safety concerns were raised for residents unable to effectively communicate needs, increasing the urgency of timely staffing and monitoring.
In summary, Standing Stone appears to deliver excellent, compassionate care in many instances — particularly where committed clinical staff and therapists are present and engaged. However, the presence of multiple, severe negative reports (including potential neglect, infection control failures, medication errors, and catastrophic wound management outcomes) indicates significant variability and risk. The reviews point to inconsistent staffing levels, occasional administrative failures to remediate problems, and lapses in basic care and safety that have had serious consequences for some residents. Prospective residents and families should weigh both the strong positive testimonials and the serious negative incidents, and when evaluating the facility in person, prioritize asking about staffing ratios, wound and infection-control protocols, medication administration safeguards, documentation practices, recent inspection/complaint history, and continuity of care across shifts.
