6248 66th Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95823 (opens Google Maps) · Sacramento County · (916) 392-4440· 99 certified beds · avg 94 residents/day · certified since Dec 6, 1983 · 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: KALESTA HEALTHCARE GROUP (19 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Oct 2, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 39 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 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 F-0600
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Oct 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0806 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0919 |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0688 |
| Feb 8, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0658 |
| Jan 31, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0880 |
| Sep 15, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Aug 28, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0803 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0919 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0558 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Jul 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| May 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0655 |
| May 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| May 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0680 |
| May 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0759 |
| May 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| May 6, 2021 | 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 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| May 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0558 |
| May 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0656 |
| May 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 6).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
2 fines totaling $21,952.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 2, 2023 | Fine | $13,762 |
| Aug 28, 2023 | Fine | $8,190 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| 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 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 4.10, RN 0.58, weekend 3.70.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.10 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 4/5
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.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - 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 |
Showing 20 of 33 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 13 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Kalesta Healthcare Group — 19 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 18 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| 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 →
CMS records place this facility in Sacramento, CA — 37 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 555160.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details