City Creek Post Acute

Name: City Creek Post Acute
Address: 6248 66th Avenue, Sacramento, CA, 95823, US
Telephone: 9163924440

6248 66th Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95823 · Sacramento County · 99 certified beds · avg 94 residents/day · certified since Dec 6, 1983

Part of chain: KALESTA HEALTHCARE GROUP (19 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)

4/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$21,952

Fines, last 3 years

3.55

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 28, 2023 · F-0697 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (39)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
May 8, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Oct 29, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Oct 17, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Oct 17, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 17, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint
Oct 17, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Oct 17, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint
Jun 12, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · from a complaint
Feb 8, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Feb 1, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint
Jan 31, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Sep 15, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Aug 28, 2023	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Jul 13, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jul 13, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Jul 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jul 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jul 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Jul 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Jul 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Jul 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Jul 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jul 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Jul 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jul 13, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
May 6, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
May 6, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
May 6, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
May 6, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
May 6, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
May 6, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 6).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2021	13	0	E
2023	14	1	G ▲
2024	11	0	E
2025	1	0	D

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)

2 fines totaling $21,952.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Oct 2, 2023	Fine	$13,762
Aug 28, 2023	Fine	$8,190

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

Measure	This facility	California avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	3.55	4.31	3.95	bottom 12% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.50	0.61	0.69	top 46% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.21	3.90	3.50	bottom 11% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.49	0.51	0.48	top 31% in California; top 33% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	47.2	36.7	45.8	bottom 20% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	61.1	38.1	42.9	bottom 14% in California; bottom 20% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 4.10, RN 0.58, weekend 3.70. Staffing rating: 2/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Clawson, Scott	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	44%	10/01/2019
Kalesta Healthcare Group, LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	10/01/2019
Williams, Ryan	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	44%	10/01/2019
Chen, Kai Shin	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/04/2021
Chen, Kai Shin	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/04/2021
Clawson, Scott	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	10/01/2019
Dhir, Sunil	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2020
Dhir, Sunil	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2020
Fields, Domonique	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	10/01/2019
Fields, Domonique	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/01/2019
Flake, Ethan	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	10/07/2024
Flake, Ethan	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/07/2024
Hinkle, Cortney	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	01/09/2024
Hinkle, Cortney	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/09/2024
Jones, Steven	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2024
Jones, Steven	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2024
Mann, Sunindar	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/17/2023
Modi, Ishankumar	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	11/04/2019
Modi, Ishankumar	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	11/04/2019
Mosher, Steven	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/08/2024

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
"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?"
"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?"
"How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
"How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
"Can you show me the call buttons in the bathrooms and bathing areas, and tell me your average response time when one is pressed?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Bridgewood Post Acute	1.7 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Bruceville Terrace - D/P SNF of Methodist Hospital	2.2 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Double Tree Post Acute Care Center	2.7 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
Capital Post Acute	2.8 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
University Post-Acute Rehab	4.8 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Saylor Lane Healthcare Center	5.4 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Acc Care Center	5.4 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	3/5
Cedarwood Post Acute	5.6 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	5.8 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
McKinley Park Care Center	5.8 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute	5.9 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Greenhaven Healthcare Center	6.0 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Sacramento →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555160.

The Care File

Visit checklist — City Creek Post Acute

6248 66th Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95823 · 9163924440

Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 5/5· Fines (3y): $21,952

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Aug 28, 2023 (F-0697, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
☐ "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?"
☐ "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?"
☐ "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
☐ "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
☐ "Can you show me the call buttons in the bathrooms and bathing areas, and tell me your average response time when one is pressed?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 555160 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)