222 Walnut Street, Church Hill, MD 21623
For more information about senior living options: (866) 208-4318
St. Peter Assisted Living Home Costs & Pricing
St. Peter Assisted Living Home offers competitive pricing for its services when compared to both Queen Anne's County and the broader Maryland area. The monthly cost for a semi-private room at St. Peter is $3,750, which is notably lower than the county average of $4,445 and slightly more affordable than the state average of $3,545. For those seeking private accommodations, the monthly rate is set at $4,500. While this figure exceeds the county's average of $4,384, it remains moderately priced compared to the state's median of $4,112. These costs reflect St. Peter's commitment to providing quality care while maintaining affordability in a variety of living options for its residents.
| Floor plans | St. Peter Assisted Living Home | Queen Anne's County | Maryland |
|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-Private | $3,750 | $4,445 | $3,545 |
| Private | $4,500 | $4,384 | $4,112 |
Assisted Living communities with a similar price nearby
-
from -$223 / mo
Dover Place
$3,527 to $7,023 / month23.1 miles away -
from +$150 / mo
Homestead Manor
$3,900 to $4,900 / month19.6 miles away -
About the same
Brookdale Dover
$3,745 to $5,250 / month23.5 miles away -
from -$330 / mo
Westminster Village
$3,420 to $4,050 / month23.2 miles away
Overall Review of St. Peter Assisted Living Home
Pros
The facility is clean.- The recently hired RN for the night shift has shown signs of improvement in the service.
- The people seemed nice.
Cons
The facility is not safe due to a lack of sprinklers and blocked emergency exits. - There is no call system, so residents must yell for assistance.
- Bladder care is neglected, with diapers treated as the solution.
- Staffing is inadequate, with only one cook and two aides doing all the work.
- The night shift RN has shown only limited improvement in service.
- The facility looks old and run down and is in desperate need of a remodel.
- It is not as clean as it should be, and residents must share rooms and bathrooms that were not clean.
- Some staff do not speak English well, hindering communication.
- Tours were poorly handled, with staff unable to answer questions.
- The facility is not as clean or well maintained as expected for the price, and the reviewer would not recommend it.
Review
St. Peter Assisted Living Home is best suited for seniors who are largely independent, want a small, home‑like setting, and are willing to trade high-touch care for a lower overall cost. It can work for a couple or an individual who can manage most daily tasks without constant supervision, and who accepts shared rooms and bathrooms in exchange for affordability. For residents with significant safety needs, frequent assistance requirements, or expectations of modern amenities, this community is unlikely to deliver the reliability and reassurance those needs demand. The upside is a modest, neighborly feel and a price point that can ease budgeting, provided expectations stay aligned with what the setting can consistently provide.
Families should explicitly consider alternatives if a loved one requires strong safety nets, frequent assistance, or privacy. Those who rely on a reliable call system, rapid response to emergencies, or meticulous cleanliness will likely find the gaps material. Language compatibility matters as well; reports of staff communication challenges suggest this setting may complicate caregiving when clear, continuous communication is essential. Prospective residents who must have private rooms, or who expect modern maintenance and facility upgrades, should look elsewhere, because the current environment often presents as older and less well maintained.
On the positive side, the compact, home-like scale could enable occasional personalized attention when staff are on duty, and the recent addition of an RN for night shifts signals an intent to elevate clinical oversight. The presence of a few caregivers and the visible willingness to adjust staffing suggests a facility that strives to respond to gaps, which can matter for families prioritizing affordability over luxury. The staff’s approachable demeanor in some accounts can help ease day-to-day interactions, particularly for residents who do not demand constant high-level supervision.
The most persistent red flags center on safety and maintenance. There are serious concerns about fire and life-safety infrastructure, no sprinklers, emergency exits reportedly blocked with wheelchairs or supplies, and the absence of a functioning call system means a resident needing assistance might have to yell for help. Staffing levels are clearly lean, three aides, one cook, plus a small night staff, raising questions about supervision, timely assistance, and consistent bladder/bowel care. Cleanliness and sanitation appear inconsistent, and the shared-room, shared-bathroom model compounds dignity and hygiene challenges. Language barriers add another hurdle to reliable communication between residents and caregivers.
Those quality gaps do not vanish simply because the setting is intimate or affordable; in fact, they tend to magnify risk for residents with even moderate care needs. The limited staff, coupled with rumored maintenance and cleanliness issues, means responsiveness and reliable daily routines may suffer. The RN addition could improve medical oversight, but it does not overcome the absence of a robust call system or the broader safety deficits. In practical terms, the positives offer only partial mitigation; the cons dominate the risk–reward calculation for most families evaluating a move into this home.
Bottom line: this community should be approached only by families with very low daily care needs, a strong tolerance for safety gaps, and a willingness to actively supervise and negotiate service levels. Before committing, demand concrete assurances on life-safety compliance (sprinklers, unblocked exits), a measurable call-system plan, and documented staffing ratios with accountability for emergency response. Confirm ongoing maintenance plans, clear housekeeping protocols, and a pathway to improved cleanliness. If any of these assurances cannot be provided or if bladder care and incontinence management remain inadequately addressed, the family should continue seeking options with proven safety records, better sanitation standards, and more reliable around-the-clock oversight.
10 resident community capacity
Assisted Living
Board and Care Home
Activities off-site
Bath tubs
Beautician on-site
Cable or satellite TV
Devotional services on-site
Dining room
Fully furnished
Garden
Housekeeping services
Indoor common areas
Move-in coordination
Outdoor common areas
Private
Private bathrooms
Respite or short term stays offered
Telephone
Wi-Fi/high-speed internet available
24-hour supervision
Ambulatory care
Assistance with bathing
Assistance with dressing
Assistance with transfers
Diabetes diet
Diabetic care
High acuity care
Incontinence care
Meal preparation and service
Medication management
Special dietary restrictions
Transportation arrangement (medical)
Transportation to doctors appointments
A Detailed Exploration of Assisted Living Medicaid Waivers Across the United States
Comprehensive Residential Support and Assisted Living Solutions for Individuals with Disabilities
Comprehensive Supportive Living Arrangements for Adults with Disabilities