Overall sentiment across reviews for City Creek Post Acute is highly mixed and polarized. A large portion of reviewers praise the facility for its caring front-line staff, an effective rehabilitation program, a recently renovated and bright environment, and an engaged activities department. Many family members and patients name specific caregivers, therapists, and administrators who provided exceptional, personalized attention — facilitating FaceTime updates, bringing favorite snacks, assisting with strict therapy goals, and offering emotional support during stressful times. The rehab teams (PT/OT) and several CNAs and nurses receive consistent, positive mentions for helping patients progress, regain mobility, and meet therapy goals. Admissions, social services support, and some administrative staff are described as efficient and helpful, and multiple reviewers emphasize that the facility can offer a warm, home-like atmosphere with good social activities and attentive dining experiences.
Counterbalancing those positives are numerous and serious negative reports that raise safety, quality, and management concerns. Several reviews allege neglect and unsafe conditions: long call-button response times, failure to notice oxygen supply problems, pressure sores, falls, unattended wandering residents, and in a few extreme accounts, unsanitary conditions including reports of maggots. There are also disturbing allegations of assault and elder abuse by staff in some summaries. Multiple reviewers describe inconsistent care quality that varies significantly by shift and by individual staff member; families often report that some CNAs and nurses are exceptional while others are inattentive, inexperienced, or rude. Staffing shortages and overworked personnel are repeatedly cited as drivers of these inconsistencies, leading to missed baths, incomplete assistance with hygiene, skipped or delayed therapy sessions, and gaps in nursing coverage.
Management, communication, and administrative practices are another major theme with a split perspective. Some reviews single out administrators and managers (named individuals such as Quinn, Nick, and others) who are responsive, sincere, and proactive in addressing concerns. Other reviews, however, describe management as incompetent or defensive: hostile interactions with families, failure to consult relatives before discharge, false discharge notices, denial of incident reports, and poor front-desk behavior are all mentioned. Serious allegations of administrative misconduct appear in multiple summaries, including claims of time-clock manipulation, probationary or inadequately supervised nurses, medical-record inconsistencies, and even suggestions of regulatory scrutiny and state involvement. Privacy concerns (HIPAA violations) and allegations that resident information was exploited for marketing or caused persistent spam calls post-discharge also appear in the negative accounts.
Clinical care and medical oversight receive mixed feedback. Many reviewers praise nurses for being detail-oriented and medicine-focused, while others report confusion over insulin/sliding scale instructions, misidentified wounds, untreated infections, and inadequate monitoring after critical events (e.g., sepsis or oxygen depletion). A few reviews allege outright medical negligence or noted that the facility was not suitable for higher-acuity needs such as continuous oxygen users or complex compression-fracture care. COVID-19 protocols are another divisive item: while some saw appropriate infection control, multiple reports describe protocol violations, facility outbreaks, and insufficient pandemic precautions.
Dining and activities are generally strong relative to other domains: numerous reviewers compliment the variety, appeal, and social nature of meals, along with supportive and creative activity staff who improved residents' mood and engagement. Joelle/Joellen and several activity assistants are frequently singled out for making residents feel special and helping families cope. Still, food quality is inconsistent across reviews — while many find meals good or improved after renovation, others call the food horrible.
Patterns to note: the facility appears to deliver high-quality, compassionate care in many instances — especially around therapy and activity engagement — but outcomes and experiences are highly dependent on which staff are on duty and the level of supervision from management. The extremes in reporting range from “top-of-the-line” rehab and attentive nursing to allegations of abuse, neglect, and unsanitary conditions. Because of these polarized accounts, families should consider visiting during multiple times/shifts, asking for copies of incident logs and staffing ratios, confirming wound/medication protocols in writing, and verifying how the facility handles call response times and emergency oxygen/medical equipment checks.
In summary, City Creek Post Acute receives strong praise for its rehabilitation services, many compassionate frontline caregivers, and its renovated facility and activities program. At the same time, recurring and serious concerns around staffing shortages, inconsistency of care, safety incidents, management responsiveness, and several allegations of abuse and administrative malfeasance warrant careful scrutiny. The reviews suggest that care can be excellent under committed staff and attentive management, but the variability and severity of negative reports make it important for prospective families to conduct thorough due diligence and ongoing monitoring if they choose this facility.
