The reviews for Stonehenge of South Jordan show a strongly mixed picture with distinct positive features and significant, recurring concerns. On the positive side, reviewers consistently note that the facility presents very well: an impressive, magnificent lobby, attractive exterior and overall cleanliness are frequently mentioned. Practical amenities such as private rooms, an on-site salon, and a therapy team that some families found accommodating are also cited. Several reviewers reported caring nurses and CNAs, a cheerful recreational therapist, reliable dietary accommodations and good food, regular care updates, and even referenced a five-star Medicare rating. For some residents and families the facility appears to deliver solid, dependable care and a pleasant environment.
However, a substantial number of reviews describe serious problems with staffing, responsiveness, and medical care. Multiple reviewers used terms like "skeleton crew" and reported that call lights or the switchboard did not get answered. There are repeated descriptions of infrequent or absent staff visits, beds left wet or soiled, and a general lack of responsiveness. More alarming are the clinical allegations: ignored medical needs, failures to change catheters, concerns about medication management including medications being switched without consent, and an account of a UTI worsening to sepsis with a reported death. One reviewer explicitly reported that a nurse lied. These reports culminated in at least one Medicare complaint according to the summaries.
There is also clear inconsistency between accounts of services. Whereas some families praised the therapy team and said the facility provided regular physical therapy and helpful rehabilitation services, another review said no physical therapy was provided. Similarly, while some reviewers praised the nursing staff as caring and consistent, others called the nursing staff inadequate and described CNAs as "terrible." Several reviewers described rude or unprofessional behavior by specific staff, including an insensitive nurse practitioner. This variability suggests uneven staffing, training, or management oversight that results in widely different experiences for residents.
Facility investment and priorities emerge as a theme: reviewers repeatedly contrasted an attractive façade and impressive public spaces with rooms that are "not plush" and allegations that money was spent on appearance rather than on clinical staffing or care quality. Activities are noted as present but sometimes limited. The mix of glowing comments about staff and amenities alongside severe clinical complaints produces a polarized overall sentiment: some families feel comfortable and satisfied, while others strongly advise avoiding the facility and are planning to move their loved ones.
Taken together, the reviews indicate a facility with strong physical appearance and several genuine positives in programming and some staff members, but also with persistent and significant operational and clinical concerns. The most serious patterns are inconsistent staff performance, responsiveness failures, and clinical lapses with potentially grave outcomes. Prospective residents and families should be aware of this variability: verify current staffing levels, ask for documentation of infection-control procedures and catheter/medication protocols, confirm which therapy services are actually provided, request recent state or Medicare inspection results, and talk directly with several current families or residents before making a decision. The mixed reviews warrant caution and targeted questions during a visit to ensure that the aspects most important to the prospective resident are reliable and consistently delivered.
