Overall sentiment: The reviews of Advanced Health Care of St. George are strongly mixed but trend positive for post-acute rehabilitation and therapy services, with numerous reviewers praising the facility as a top local rehab option. A substantial portion of reviewers highlight exceptional therapy teams (PT and OT), compassionate nursing staff, and a resort-like facility environment. At the same time, there are recurring, serious concerns from other reviewers about safety, staffing, communication, and sporadic lapses in clinical care. These opposing patterns suggest strong strengths in rehab-focused care and hospitality-style amenities, coupled with inconsistent operational performance that can produce severe negative outcomes for some patients.
Care quality and therapy: The most frequent and consistent praise is for rehabilitation services. Multiple reviewers describe therapists as outstanding, willing to go the extra mile, and capable of producing better-than-expected recovery in structured programs (up to three hours of therapy per day reported). Specific staff—PTs and OTs by name in several reviews—are credited with creating tailored plans and practical solutions. Wound care, advanced rehab support, and effective follow-up through Advanced Home Health are also commonly noted. However, a subset of reviews reports problems with therapy: sessions that felt forced, poorly scheduled therapy causing severe pain, and difficulty coordinating therapy times. Those negative reports are less common than the positive ones but are clinically significant because they involve pain and potentially inappropriate therapy practices.
Staff, compassion, and professionalism: Many reviewers repeatedly describe the nursing, CNA, housekeeping, and administrative staff as kind, attentive, and professional. Numerous individual staff members are singled out for praise and gratitude. Several accounts describe quick, coordinated responses to surgical or pain-management needs and examples of staff “going above and beyond.” Conversely, other reviews recount unprofessional behaviors: staff playing on phones in hallways, slow or unresponsive nurses, failure to answer call buttons, and alleged fabrications or fake-positive reviews. This suggests variability in staff performance and occasional lapses in supervision or standards.
Facilities, rooms, and amenities: The facility itself receives high marks for appearance and comfort. Reviewers frequently mention hotel-like, beautifully decorated interiors, large private rooms with microwaves, small refrigerators, sinks, TVs, and adjustable bariatric beds with foam toppers. Common areas, elegant dining rooms, fish tanks, patios with views, and a restful ambiance are commonly praised. Several reviewers described the environment as clean, quiet, and restorative. A minority, however, reported pest problems (mice, scorpions) and situations where rooms were not properly stocked (no extra cots/chairs), indicating inconsistent housekeeping or facility maintenance in some cases.
Dining and nutrition: Dining receives mixed but often positive feedback. Many reviewers praise delicious meals, variety, and accommodating dietitians; some report elegant dining experiences and special requests honored. At the same time, other families described cafeteria-style service, lack of fresh produce, poor overall food quality, and failures to accommodate special dietary needs—indicating variability in the dining experience and menu execution across different stays or shifts.
Safety, clinical oversight, and medication management: Several reviews raise serious safety concerns that require attention. Reported incidents include patients sliding out of beds and going to the ER, falls due to unlocked walkers, medication errors or forgotten pain medication, and at least one alarming incident of improper insulin administration leading to severe hypoglycemia and hospitalization. Some reviewers report inadequate monitoring (oxygen levels, blood sugar) and insufficient licensed nursing coverage during certain shifts. These reports, while not universal, are clinically significant and contrast sharply with other accounts of life-saving and attentive care, suggesting inconsistent clinical governance and variable adherence to protocols.
Cleanliness, pests, and housekeeping: Many reviewers commend housekeeping and cleanliness, noting reliable laundry service and well-kept rooms. Others reported lapses—residents left in soiled clothing, forgotten personal care, and more serious allegations of pest presence (mouse traps, sightings of mice or scorpions). These conflicting accounts point to generally good housekeeping for many residents but troubling lapses for some that could indicate localized problems or inconsistent supervision.
Management, communication, and trust: Administrative responsiveness is a recurring theme with mixed views. Numerous reviewers praise administration for helpfulness, reimbursement when items were lost, and prompt handling of concerns. But a notable number of reviews criticize management for poor communication, disorganization, misleading information about care or inventories, uneven follow-through, and the need for family members to advocate aggressively. Several reviewers explicitly say trust was undermined despite intended reimbursements or apologies. Security and theft concerns were raised, with some families requesting camera monitoring to ensure safety.
Patterns and recommendations: The dominant positive pattern is that Advanced Health Care of St. George often delivers high-quality, rehab-focused care in a comfortable, hotel-like setting with many staff who are skilled, compassionate, and dedicated. For many patients—especially those focused on physical rehabilitation—the facility appears to be an excellent choice, with many glowing, detailed recommendations. The dominant negative pattern is variability: some stays involve serious safety lapses, medication and clinical management errors, pest sightings, poor communication, and understaffing. These issues are less frequently reported than the positive experiences but are severe when they occur.
Conclusion: If you are considering this facility, expect strong rehabilitation services, compassionate staff, and a comfortable physical environment in many cases. However, be aware of variability and take proactive steps: verify nursing coverage and monitoring for high-risk conditions (insulin-dependent diabetes, fall risk), document and inventory personal items, maintain active family advocacy, and confirm therapy scheduling and pain-management plans. The reviews indicate that while many residents thrive here, others have experienced significant safety and communication failures. Families should weigh the consistently praised rehab strengths against the potential for inconsistent operational performance and consider direct conversations with administration about protocols for medication safety, fall prevention, staffing, and pest control before admission.
