The reviews for Sage Creek Post-Acute are deeply polarized, producing a mixture of strong praise and serious concerns. A large portion of reviewers describe a clean, attractive, modern facility with private rooms, good therapy spaces, and pleasant public areas. Many families and patients singled out individual staff members—especially the receptionist Doreen and several named nurses, CNAs, therapists, social workers, and directors—for exceptional compassion, helpfulness, and professionalism. The physical and occupational therapy teams receive frequent praise for producing measurable gains that enabled discharge home; multiple reviewers explicitly say the rehab programs are among the best in the area. Dining, activities, and amenities such as a large gym, TVs, and a varied menu are also positive themes for many guests.
However, alongside those positives are numerous, often serious negative reports that appear repeatedly and create alarm for potential residents and families. The most common negative pattern is understaffing—particularly on night and weekend shifts—resulting in long wait times for call-light responses, delayed medications (including pain meds), unattended patients during the night, and generally inconsistent nursing visibility. Reviewers report variability in care quality from shift to shift and staff member to staff member: while some nurses and CNAs are described as caring and attentive, others are characterized as rude, dismissive, or neglectful. Several reviewers described being ignored, gaslit, or treated brusquely when requesting help.
Clinical safety concerns are prominent in multiple reviews. There are repeated accounts of missed medical assessments (e.g., no doctor exam after a fall), delayed recognition or treatment of urinary infections, untreated or mismanaged wounds and skin breakdown, medication mismanagement (including missed doses, late administration, and alleged confiscation), and charting/documentation problems (missing or mishandled charts, unread calls). Some reports describe serious outcomes such as falls with fractures, transfusions related to poor monitoring, hospital readmissions, infections like C. diff, and in a few cases, death occurring in or after the facility's care. These reports suggest that, for some patients, clinical oversight and follow-up were inadequate.
Communication and administrative issues appear across many reviews. Families cite difficulty obtaining timely updates, inconsistent discharge paperwork, HIPAA being used in ways that limit useful family communication, and unanswered phone calls. Financial and billing complaints are frequent and substantial in some cases—disputed charges ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars, confusion around insurance information, and reports of aggressive billing practices. There are also alarming reports of missing or stolen personal items (laundry, clothing, toiletries, even money), and a few reviewers explicitly reported filing police reports. Some reviewers felt the facility prioritized business/financial considerations over patient care.
Service variability is another clear theme: many reviewers describe an excellent experience (welcoming staff, strong therapy, clean rooms, good food), while others describe the opposite (ignored patients, poor hygiene, no water in rooms, unacceptable meal service). Several reviewers described a clear day-versus-night differential—day staff were often rated highly while night staff received much lower marks. Some reviewers who experienced initial problems reported that specific staff (social workers, case managers, or directors) effectively intervened and resolved issues; others said attempts to escalate concerns to management produced defensiveness or inadequate remediation. There are also reports of inadequate care specifically for dementia or Alzheimer's patients, including wandering incidents and unanswered safety concerns.
Several practical facility-level criticisms came up repeatedly: lack of in-room phones (requiring use of a shared phone), occasional long waits for transport, missing promised therapies (especially on COVID/quarantine units), questionable infection-control outcomes for certain cases, and inconsistent housekeeping or laundry practices. Conversely, many reviewers praised the admissions process and therapy coordination, reporting smooth transitions and good discharge planning when care was well-managed.
Overall, the pattern is one of a facility that, on its best days and shifts, provides excellent post-acute care—effective therapy, compassionate staff, a pleasant environment, and successful discharges home—but on its worst days and shifts demonstrates dangerous lapses: understaffing, medication and documentation errors, poor communication, and in extreme reports, neglect or harm. The range of experiences implies high variability driven by staffing levels, time of day/week, and individual personnel. Prospective residents and families should weigh the positive reports of strong rehab outcomes and compassionate staff against the recurring systemic issues. If considering this facility, families should ask detailed questions about staffing ratios and night coverage, insist on clear medication and incident reporting procedures, confirm discharge planning and billing practices up front, and plan to actively monitor the first days of a stay (including verifying medication administration, wound checks, and documentation). Identifying key contacts (admissions, case manager, a trusted RN, and the social worker) and obtaining a clear communication plan will help mitigate many of the recurring concerns flagged in reviews.
