Objective The purpose of this paper was to profile staffing levels for allied health (AH) professional and support staff in Queensland Health inpatient general rehabilitation services (at a given point-in-time) and compare them against established profession-specific standards and guidelines in order to provide a reference for future workforce planning for these services. Methods A statewide analysis of AH staffing in Queensland Health inpatient general rehabilitation services was undertaken during June–August 2011. Reported full-time equivalent positions (FTE) were compared to several established national and international benchmarks. Patient activity data was used to calculate the average length of stay (ALOS) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores on admission. Results Sixteen facilities reported 202 FTE for a total of 466 general rehabilitation beds, with a resultant average workforce ratio of 0.43 FTE/bed. While several professional groups within specific services met established benchmarks, the majority failed to reach recommended staffing ratios. More than half the workforce (53%) was entry-level or consolidating clinicians. The FTE/bed ratios were compared against both patient ALOS and FIM scores on admission and showed a poor correlation. Conclusion Across all included services statewide, there was significant variance in AH staffing levels and diversity in skill mix for inpatient general rehabilitation services. What is known about the topic? The AH workforce faces several challenges to delivering effective, efficient and responsive services including balancing the high and escalating demand for services with managing staff costs. While several different workload capacity measures have been used successfully for medical and nursing professions, there is currently little published evidence about effective workforce allocation for AH professionals (AHPs) in rehabilitation settings. What does this paper add? This paper describes AH staffing levels in Queensland Health inpatient general rehabilitation services. It includes the outcome of analysis of data collected from AHPs and allied health assistants (AHAs) and comparison with established benchmarks. What are the implications for practitioners? The workforce ratios identified can assist with future workforce planning when introducing new services and reviewing service delivery models. They should be considered in conjunction with other relevant standards and planning tools, and it is recommended that further work be undertaken to investigate links between staffing levels and patient outcomes, as many of the current benchmarks rely heavily on professional opinion.