Overall sentiment across the reviews for Plum Creek Supportive Living is mixed, with pronounced polarization: a substantial number of residents and family members report strong satisfaction with staff, social life, food, and affordability, while others describe troubling issues related to facility condition, staffing reliability, and management responsiveness.
Care quality and staffing: Many reviews praise attentive CNAs and caring staff who go out of their way, with repeated comments that staff are kind, helpful, and keep residents safe. Several long-term residents and relatives explicitly state confidence in the care (including proactive monitoring and meal check-ins) and describe the facility as providing good care for conditions like COPD. At the same time, a significant subset of reviews raise serious concerns about staffing — short staffing, unstaffed shifts, high CNA turnover, and allegations of unprofessional or unqualified nursing staff and physician oversight. Some reviewers reported neglectful behavior and poor supportive care. These contrasting views suggest inconsistent care experiences that may vary by shift, staff on duty, or time period.
Facility condition and amenities: The facility is frequently described as smaller and cozy with welcoming common areas, an inviting dining room, elevators at both ends, library and TV room, and a redecorated lobby and café area that many residents enjoy. Location advantages (near Northwest Community Hospital and easy access to highways) and features such as 24-hour nursing, visiting medical specialists, physical therapy, and on-site services (laundry, apartment cleaning) are highlighted as strengths. Conversely, several reviewers report parts of the building are run-down or dingy, with dirty carpeting, ripped furniture, smelly bathrooms, and a converted-hotel appearance in rooms. Limited outdoor grounds and long building hallways are also noted. The dichotomy between "recently renovated" common areas and older, worn resident areas appears repeatedly.
Dining and activities: Dining earns both praise and criticism. Numerous residents compliment the food — calling it amazing, delicious, and 'foodie-friendly' — and appreciate snacks available throughout the day. However, other reviewers describe the food as poor, indicating inconsistent dining experiences. Activities are consistently cited as a positive: frequent daily programming (bingo, happy hour, movie nights, arts and crafts), increased activity offerings, bus trips, and group exercise are commonly mentioned and credited with improving socialization and quality of life.
Management, communication, and administration: Several reviewers report unresponsive management, difficulty getting callbacks, and an unavailable administrator, with one or two reviews naming specific staff (reported concerns involving individuals by name). Positive reviews praise directors and front-desk staff for responsiveness. The contrast points to variability in leadership visibility and communication; prospective residents and families reported concerns about how inquiries and tours are handled, with at least one negative tour experience described as misleading.
Cost and value: Affordability is a notable advantage for many reviewers — Plum Creek is described repeatedly as financially accommodating, supporting low-income seniors, and offering good value for those qualifying. Simultaneously, some reviewers — particularly those discussing private-pay arrangements — feel the monthly cost is high and not commensurate with facility condition or level of care, describing it as overpriced or poor value.
Patterns and notable tensions: The most consistent pattern is a split between residents (or long-term family members) who report high satisfaction, stability, and strong day-to-day experiences versus prospective residents or families (and some former residents) who report maintenance issues, occasional neglect, and management or staffing failures. Positive themes cluster around social life, caring front-line staff, and available services; negative themes cluster around building condition, staffing reliability, and communication from management. Several reviews reference specific positive staff members and praise for the activities team, while multiple complaints single out management and certain nurses as problems.
Bottom line: Plum Creek Supportive Living appears to offer strong social programming, helpful front-line staff at times, and a suite of onsite services that appeal to low-income and semi-independent seniors. However, there are recurrent and significant concerns about inconsistent staffing, facility maintenance, management responsiveness, and uneven care quality. Families considering Plum Creek should weigh the frequent reports of excellent day-to-day support and community life against the documented variability in facility condition and staffing; visiting at different times, asking about staffing levels, tour experiences, and recent maintenance/renovation plans, and speaking with current residents and families could help clarify which aspects are currently prevailing.
