The reviews for Stonehenge Of American Fork are highly polarized, producing a mixed but important overall picture: several reviewers praise the rehabilitation services, individual caregivers, and facility cleanliness, while others report troubling lapses in clinical care, monitoring, and communication. The most consistent positive themes center on therapy and individual staff members. Numerous reviewers describe excellent physical and occupational therapy experiences, noting effective therapists who helped patients improve and whom families would recommend. Many accounts also emphasize large, clean rooms, friendly staff interactions, and practical services such as laundry and dining rooms. Several reviewers stated they had a very good or wonderful experience and would recommend the facility based on their rehab outcomes and interactions with specific staff members.
Counterbalancing those positive reports are frequent and serious negative themes about clinical quality and safety. A number of reviewers reported missed or delayed nursing tasks — examples include missed dressing changes, delayed or omitted medications and labs, and long delays in call-light responses (with multiple accounts citing waits of 20+ minutes). Wound care problems are a recurrent and alarming thread: incomplete wound reports to surgeons, abnormal drainage and color changes, inadequate dressing changes, and explicit concerns about increased infection risk. In at least one case reviewers stated the patient required surgeon intervention because of incomplete documentation and substandard wound care. There are also reports of serious medication management failures, including an alleged morphine overdose that required Narcan. These accounts present real risks to patient safety and led some families to file complaints with state regulators and Medicare.
Communication and staffing patterns are another major area of concern. Several reviewers describe poor communication with families and inadequate coordination between nursing and providers, including delayed physician response. Multiple comments characterize the facility as understaffed or poorly run, with staff distracted (for example, on phones during visits) and rare nurse visibility on the floor. These systemic complaints are linked by reviewers to operational pressures: comments that the facility is profit-driven and will discharge patients when insurance coverage lapses were reported, as well as direct statements that discharges occurred against medical recommendations. In at least one reported chain of events, an insurance denial and premature discharge were followed by readmission with C. difficile, illustrating how administrative and clinical issues intersect.
Dining and activities evoke mixed reactions. Some reviewers liked the available activities, concerts, and the general social vibe, while others strongly criticized food quality — one reviewer compared meals unfavorably to elementary school lunches and noted that meals were not adjusted for gastrointestinal concerns. Thus, while dining and activities are present, quality and appropriateness appear inconsistent across residents.
Management, accountability, and response to complaints are recurring concerns. Several reviewers said management or ownership responses did not adequately address the issues raised. There are also allegations of unprofessional or emotionally harmful caregiver behavior in some accounts, including a nurse reportedly yelling at coworkers and displaying an unhappy or negative demeanor toward residents. At the extreme end, some reviews allege fatal outcomes or near-fatal events tied to lapses in care; while these are reviewer reports and not independently verified here, they underscore strongly negative experiences and prompted regulatory complaints in some cases.
In sum, Stonehenge Of American Fork receives high praise from multiple reviewers for its rehabilitation services, individual therapists, and some compassionate staff members, as well as for spacious, clean rooms. However, there is a substantial and potentially serious pattern of negative reports: inconsistent nursing care, wound care deficits, medication and monitoring failures, long response times, poor communication, and administrative pressure related to insurance and discharge decisions. Prospective residents and families should weigh the strong positive experiences with therapy and select staff against the documented safety and consistency concerns. If considering this facility, it would be prudent to ask specific questions about staffing ratios, wound-care protocols, medication monitoring practices, physician availability, call-light response times, and how the facility handles insurance-related discharge decisions. Additionally, families may want to request recent inspection/regulatory reports and to identify the therapy and nursing staff members who receive the most positive mentions so they can seek continuity of care where possible.
