How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
City Creek Post Acute
165 South 1000 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84102 (opens Google Maps) · Salt Lake County · (801) 322-5521· 108 certified beds · avg 69 residents/day · certified since Dec 15, 1979 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 30, 2026
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 30, 2026
$0
Fines, last 3 years
—
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 30, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 30, 2026 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Mar 22, 2026 (Past Non-Compliance)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 4, 2022 · F-0600
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 4, 2022 · F-0600
The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jul 3, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 4, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 4, 2022 · F-0684
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jul 3, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. F-0812
The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. F-0880
View all 21 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 30, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Mar 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Jan 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jan 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint · F-0690 |
| May 4, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · F-0600 |
| May 4, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| May 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| May 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not perform required COVID-19 testing on residents and staff. · F-0886 |
| May 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770 |
| May 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · F-0773 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 6).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 1
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 13 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityUtah averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: Not reported
Utah average: 3.87
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: Not reported
Utah average: 1.17
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: Not reported
Utah average: 3.39
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Utah avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | — | 3.87 | 3.95 | — |
| Registered Nurse hours | — | 1.17 | 0.69 | — |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | — | 3.39 | 3.50 | — |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | — | 0.88 | 0.48 | — |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | — | 50.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 40.6 | 42.9 | — |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total —, RN —, weekend —.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (— here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for City Creek Post Acute. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Partnership
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avenues Healthcare, INC. | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Avenues Healthcare, INC. | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2025 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Caretrust GP LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2006 |
| Caretrust Reit INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2006 |
| Ctr Partnership LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/28/2014 |
| Ellis, KC | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2016 |
| Ellis, KC | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2016 |
| Ellis, KC | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2016 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2006 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Moss, Tyler | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Tenth East Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/28/2014 |
| Workman, David | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2024 |
| Workman, David | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2024 |
| Workman, David | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2024 |
All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Ensign Group — 342 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Copper Ridge Health Care — West Jordan, UT · overall 3/5
- Coral Desert Rehabilitation and Care — St. George, UT · overall 4/5
- Draper Rehabilitation and Care Center — Draper, UT · overall 4/5
- Harrison Pointe Healthcare and Rehabilitation — Ogden, UT · overall 4/5
- Heritage Park Healthcare and Rehabilitation — Roy, UT · overall 3/5abuse
- Holladay Healthcare Center — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 3/5
- Hurricane Health and Rehabilitation — Hurricane, UT · overall 2/5
- Mt Ogden Health and Rehabilitation Center — Washington Terrace, UT · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 341 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
- "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 16 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 36 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maple Ridge Rehabilitation and Nursing | 0.5 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| William E Christofferson Salt Lake Veterans Home | 1.6 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| St Joseph Villa | 2.5 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pine Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing | 2.7 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Midtown Manor | 3.2 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Monument Healthcare South Salt Lake | 3.2 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Meadow Brook Rehabilitation and Nursing | 3.5 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Millcreek Rehabilitation and Nursing | 3.5 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Little Cottonwood Rehabilitation and Nursing | 4.2 mi | South Salt Lake, UT | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Mt. Olympus Rehabilitation Center | 4.5 mi | Salt Lake City, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Monument Healthcare Canyon Rim | 4.9 mi | Millcreek, UT | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Monument Healthcare Murray Creek | 5.0 mi | Millcreek, UT | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Salt Lake, UT — 35 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Copper Ridge Health Care — West Jordan, UT · overall 3/5
- Draper Rehabilitation and Care Center — Draper, UT · overall 4/5
- Highland Care Center — Holladay, UT · overall 5/5
- Holladay Healthcare Center — Salt Lake City, UT · overall 3/5
- Legacy Village Rehabilitation — Taylorsville, UT · overall 2/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 465072.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).