Overall sentiment across the reviews is mixed but leans heavily toward significant concern. Reviewers describe a facility with pockets of genuinely good care—particularly strong PT/OT services and some compassionate, attentive staff members—set against recurring systemic problems in communication, staffing, hygiene, and administration. Positive experiences tend to focus on individual caregivers (CNAs, therapists, certain nurses) who provided helpful, patient-centered support. However, these favorable accounts are often overshadowed by multiple reports of serious lapses in basic care and facility management.
Care quality and safety are the most frequently and severely criticized areas. Numerous reviewers reported neglectful behaviors (unresponsive call buttons, inadequate toileting/diapering procedures, delayed transfers to the ER), and several allege harm resulting from care (painful transfers, possible spinal fracture, broken bones, bruises, dehydration, malnutrition, overmedication). There are recurring claims that residents were left in rooms for extended periods without proper supervision or therapy, and at least one reviewer attributes a decline and eventual death to deficiencies in care. Conversely, other families praised PT/OT and some nursing staff who helped patients improve—illustrating a stark inconsistency in care quality across staff, shifts, or units.
Staffing, management, and communication emerge as systemic weaknesses. Reviewers commonly report difficulty reaching staff and leadership, no front desk coverage, defensive or condescending responses from nurses, and confusion over power-of-attorney and billing. Administrative failures include lost legal documents, mishandled insurance/paperwork, unexpected self-pay requests for extra time, and premature discharges. Several reviewers note minimal physician coverage (one doctor and one NP reportedly covering the entire facility), which compounds concerns about clinical oversight. These management and communication breakdowns increase family frustration and create risks for resident safety and continuity of care.
Facility condition and housekeeping are additional problem areas. Complaints include unsanitary rooms, urine odors, soiled linens not changed daily, dirty gym areas, and generally minimal cleaning. The building itself is described as old and undergoing construction with incomplete upper levels, and practical issues like a slow elevator were mentioned. Rooming situations are problematic for some residents—multiple moves during a stay, semi-private/small shared rooms, and privacy concerns were cited. While some reviewers had private rooms and usable communal spaces (dining area for events), the overall picture suggests inconsistent facility upkeep.
Food and dining service receive poor marks overall. Many reviewers described meals as cold, unappetizing, or mediocre; special-diet accommodations (low-sodium, lactose-free) were sometimes delayed or unreliable. A few reviews note an adequate dining space or usable private dining arrangements, but nutrition-related complaints—including risk of dehydration and unreliable diet substitutions—are recurrent and tie back into broader care concerns.
Notable patterns include high variability between shifts and individual staff members—some families experienced compassionate, communicative nurses and effective therapists, while others encountered neglectful CNAs, missing clinical follow-up, and administrative chaos. Serious safety incidents and allegations (medication errors, insulin administration mistakes, delayed ER transfer, possible fractures) appear multiple times and should be considered red flags. The presence of Medicaid approval and good rehab therapists are positives, but they do not mitigate consistent reports of poor hygiene, understaffing, and mismanagement.
In sum, City Creek Post Acute presents a mixed record: strong rehabilitation therapy and certain dedicated staff members contrast with chronic issues in staffing levels, communication, cleanliness, meal service, and administrative competence. These issues have, according to reviewers, resulted in compromised resident care and, in some cases, serious harm. Prospective residents and families should weigh the facility’s noted strengths (PT/OT quality, some compassionate caregivers) against the recurring and serious concerns, verify staffing and clinical oversight, ask for concrete protocols on diet and safety, and consider frequent in-person monitoring if choosing this facility.
