The reviews for Stonehenge of Springville present a strongly mixed picture with many reviewers praising individual caregivers and the rehabilitation program while others report serious lapses in clinical care and oversight. On the positive side, a large number of reviewers consistently highlight warm, compassionate, and attentive front-line staff: nurses, CNAs, physical and occupational therapists, and kitchen personnel receive repeated commendations. Multiple reviewers credit the PT team with meaningful, measurable progress — restoring walking ability, strength, and functional independence — and several named therapists and staff members are singled out for exceptional bedside manner and encouragement. Administrative staff and care coordinators are also praised in many accounts for proactive discharge planning, insurance navigation, and keeping families informed, which contributed to smooth transitions and the ability for patients to attend family events even during extended stays.
Facility amenities and atmosphere are commonly reported as strengths. The physical plant is frequently described as new, clean, and attractive, with spacious private rooms, private restrooms, and a large well-equipped therapy gym. Dining often receives high marks: many reviews describe delicious home-style meals, a varied menu with minimal repetition, snacks and protein shakes available, and a strong dietician and kitchen team. Daily activities and a proactive Activities Director are also highlighted, leading to an environment many residents describe as a "home away from home."
However, alongside these positives are numerous and serious concerns about inconsistency and safety. A recurring theme is uneven quality of care between shifts or among individual caregivers. Reports include missed medications, delayed or missed physical therapy sessions, scheduling mixups that led to missed medical appointments, and slow or insufficient medical responses in urgent situations (including ambulance calls). Several reviews allege neglect severe enough to cause bedsores, dehydration, overmedication, or residents being left soiled and moved while still in hospital gowns — incidents that indicate potentially systemic failures in routine caregiving and supervision.
Infection control and communicable disease management are explicit areas of worry in some reviews. Specific mentions of C. difficile, concerns about staff working while COVID-positive, crowded dining leading to infection risk, and at least one reported resident COVID death raise red flags about consistent adherence to infection prevention protocols. Short staffing and overwork are frequently cited as underlying contributors to these problems: when staff are stretched thin, reviewers say, timely toileting assistance, medication administration, and monitoring can lapse.
Communication and management are another mixed domain. Many reviewers laud responsive administrators, social workers, and specific managers who facilitate appointments, appeals, and discharge support. Yet others describe weak or unresponsive middle management, poor follow-through on complaints, and lapses in communication with families — for example being not notified of test results or significant declines in condition. Additionally, some practical concerns recur: restrictions or complications related to insurance acceptance and length-of-stay policies, intermittent internet connectivity, and at times confusing dining experiences (reports range from exceptional food to limited or forgotten meals).
Overall, the pattern is one of polarization: when staffing, leadership engagement, and shift-level performance align, patients and families describe excellent rehabilitation outcomes, compassionate individualized care, and a comfortable facility. When those elements are absent or stretched, reviews document troubling neglect, missed care, infection concerns, and poor follow-up. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility's demonstrated strengths in therapy, food, and facility quality against the documented variability in clinical reliability and infection control. The reviews suggest that outcomes at Stonehenge of Springville may depend heavily on staffing levels, specific staff on duty, and management responsiveness on any given day, making direct inquiries about current staffing, infection protocols, and how the facility handles medication/treatment follow-through important when considering admission.
