Overall impression: Reviews of St. Peters Rehab and Healthcare Center are sharply mixed and polarized. A meaningful number of reviewers praise caring, hardworking direct-care staff, effective rehab therapy, and improvements under new management. However, an equally significant portion of reviews describe systemic problems: staffing shortages, inconsistent care quality, medication errors, communication failures, and serious safety incidents. This results in a high-variance experience where some families report excellent, attentive care and successful short-term rehab outcomes, while others report neglect, near-fatal delays in hospital transfers, and unsafe conditions.
Care quality and safety: The most serious and recurring theme among negative reviews is safety and neglect. Multiple reviewers described falls, repeat falls, delayed or refused hospital transfers, and at least one near-fatal incident that required ambulance intervention. Medication errors and mishandling were reported repeatedly (including a specific allergy incident), and family members reported weight loss attributed to medication changes, missed medications, and failure to provide needed aids (hearing aids, glasses). There are also several reports of pressure sores, bruising, dehydration, and residents being found unresponsive. These are not isolated complaints and point to gaps in clinical oversight and emergency response protocols when staffing is inconsistent.
Staffing, turnover, and agency nurses: Staffing instability is a dominant pattern. Many reviewers described chronic understaffing, long shifts, and frequent use of agency nurses; some agency staff reported unpaid wages. High turnover leads to inconsistent caregiver knowledge and routines, which in turn contributes to missed care events (e.g., long waits for bathroom assistance, call lights ignored, personal hygiene lapses such as no showers for weeks). Conversely, several reviews call out specific long-term employees and named caregivers (e.g., Nichole, Paula) as excellent, suggesting that where experienced, consistent staff are present, care quality improves significantly. New management and upgraded nursing teams were explicitly credited in multiple reviews with improving staff morale and clinical performance, indicating the facility may be in transition.
Communication and family involvement: Poor communication with families is another frequent complaint. Reported problems include no callbacks, phones without ringers, family members not informed of transfers to hospital, and belongings left untouched or not returned. Some families had to check on loved ones daily, bring food or clothing, or advocate aggressively to get medical care. In contrast, other reviewers stated staff were easy to reach, responsive, and provided helpful information. This wide spread suggests variability in unit-level communication practices and that outcomes may depend heavily on individual staff on duty or which administrative team is overseeing the resident.
Facilities, cleanliness, and infection control: Reviews about facility condition and cleanliness are inconsistent. Several reviewers praise a clean environment with no odor, well-kept grounds, and functioning laundry and salon services. Others describe filthy rooms, lingering smells, slow cleanup after accidents, and soiled linens or rooms. Some reviews specifically noted bathroom safety concerns and smaller, outdated rooms. These conflicting accounts indicate that while some parts of the building and certain shifts maintain high standards, lapses occur often enough to raise concern and merit monitoring.
Dining and amenities: Dining quality is another mixed area. Multiple reviewers criticized repetitive menus, poor food quality (notably too much pork, tough meat, and unappetizing sandwiches), and occasional missed meal service (residents not served drinks). Yet, other families reported accommodating meals and friendly cooks. Positive amenities that show up repeatedly include an on-site salon, visiting podiatrist and eye doctor, and available daily activities and occasional outings, which contribute positively when implemented reliably.
Management, improvements, and administration: Reviews point to a management divide. Several reviewers allege owners and corporate administrators are absent or only present during inspections, focused on finances over care, and sometimes block transfers due to paperwork. Conversely, multiple recent reviews applaud new management/ownership and a new director who prioritized staffing, upgraded therapy, and made tangible improvements; these reviewers credit that leadership with better outcomes and more attentive care. This suggests the facility may be undergoing genuine improvement efforts, but they are not yet consistently applied across all units or shifts.
Notable procedural and ethical concerns: There are a number of alarming allegations that go beyond standard complaints: an unauthorized pharmaceutical representative allowed in the building, staff smoking on premises, theft/missing money reports, residents' DNR decisions and end-of-life communication issues, and agency payroll disputes. These issues implicate policy enforcement, staff supervision, and the need for clearer safeguards to protect residents’ rights, privacy, and property.
Who may be served well vs who may be at risk: Residents needing short-term rehab and those who have been assigned to stable, long-tenured staff or who benefit from the new management’s improvements report good outcomes and recommendations. Conversely, more medically fragile residents, those with dementia mixed in with general population, or families unable to maintain close oversight reported heightened risk of neglect. The frequent reports of falls, delayed transfers, and medication errors particularly flag medically complex residents as vulnerable.
Actionable takeaways: The reviews support several clear actions for families considering St. Peters: (1) Visit in person and evaluate unit-level staffing and cleanliness at different times of day; (2) Ask management about use of agency staff, staff turnover rates, and nurse-to-resident ratios; (3) Verify emergency transfer protocols and how the facility communicates with families; (4) Confirm specifics on meal accommodations, laundry, and hygiene schedules; (5) Check recent state inspection reports and any substantiated complaints; and (6) Establish a plan for frequent monitoring early in placement and maintain written communication with staff. The facility shows real strengths in therapy and some dedicated staff, and there are reports of positive change under new leadership — but inconsistent application of policies, staffing instability, and repeated safety allegations mean families should proceed cautiously and monitor care closely.
