Overall impression: Reviews of Millville Center are deeply polarized, with many reviewers praising individual staff members, the admissions process, and rehabilitation outcomes, while a significant portion report serious problems—especially in the long-term care areas. The most consistent pattern is a pronounced contrast between generally positive accounts of short-term rehab stays and frequent, often severe complaints about long-term room care. As a whole, the facility appears capable of delivering excellent, compassionate care in particular units or shifts, but also demonstrates systemic issues that put some residents at risk and cause substantial family distress.
Care quality and staffing: A recurring strength in the reviews is the presence of dedicated, compassionate caregivers — CNAs and some nurses are repeatedly named and lauded for attentiveness, skill and kindness. Multiple families credited specific staff (Melissa, Britney, Juanita, Michelle and others) and unit-level leadership for rapid responses and hands-on care. The therapy and rehabilitation teams receive praise for supporting recovery and producing measurable improvements for certain patients. Conversely, an alarming number of reviews describe neglectful practices in the long-term unit: residents reportedly left in urine and feces for hours, dirty or sagging diapers, improperly managed nephrostomy tubes, and delayed or inadequate pain management. Reviewers also cited insufficient staffing levels (examples include only two aides covering 22 residents), high turnover, undertrained personnel for safe lifts/equipment, and night-shift staff described as rude or inattentive. These accounts indicate inconsistent standards of practice across shifts and units.
Facilities and cleanliness: Reports about the physical environment are mixed but trend toward concern. Many reviewers described parts of the building as old and in need of repair: worn carpets, outdated curtains, leaking hallways, chilly rooms, sagging bedding and visible maintenance issues. Complaints about strong urine odors and pest sightings (roaches) show cleanliness problems in some areas. At the same time, numerous reviews state that the facility is very clean, orderly, and secure, indicating that cleanliness likely varies by unit, time, or staff on duty. The facial recognition entry system and security were positive notes; however, exterior and parking lot maintenance (potholes, poor lighting) and outdoor cleanliness were flagged as needing improvement.
Dining and dietary services: Dining quality emerged as a frequent pain point. Multiple reviewers characterized the food as “awful,” “disgusting,” or unpalatable, with comments about missing supplies (no sugar for coffee) and very poor meal experiences. A smaller set of reviews did not mention dining problems, but the preponderance of negative statements suggests the food service is an area in need of attention.
Management, communication, and administration: Feedback about leadership and administrative responsiveness is mixed but leans positive where staff were named. Some reviewers commended the director of nursing, assistant directors, social workers and admissions personnel for prompt, knowledgeable responses and problem-solving. Conversely, families also recounted poor communication about outbreaks, unanswered transportation questions, billing disputes, and perceived corporate indifference or financial motivation. Several individuals reported having to be very proactive—calling repeatedly or escalating complaints—to get problems addressed. This variation implies that management can be effective, but communication policies and transparency are inconsistent.
Safety and clinical incidents: A number of reviews raised serious safety concerns. Examples include near-harm situations (nephrostomy drainage neglected), medication delays, inadequate wound or ice therapy, and an alleged undisclosed outbreak. There are also reports of premature discharges before patients could safely stand or manage at home, as well as an allegation of theft. These are significant red flags for families who require continuous clinical oversight and highlight the risk of variable care depending on unit/staffing.
Activities and resident life: On the positive side, activity staff, guest musicians, arts and crafts and recreational programs received favorable mentions. Several reviewers said the environment felt home-like and that residents formed friendships with staff and each other. Flexible visiting and personalized attention were described in multiple positive experiences, contributing to resident satisfaction where care and housekeeping met expectations.
Notable patterns and recommendations: The dominant theme is inconsistency. When properly staffed and led, Millville Center can deliver compassionate, effective rehab and a supportive environment; when staffing is thin or oversight lapses—particularly on long-term units—the outcomes can be poor and potentially dangerous. Facility upkeep, dining services and infection/incident transparency are recurring problem areas. Families should consider: visiting multiple times and at different times of day, asking about staffing ratios and turnover, requesting recent infection control and incident reports, checking the specific unit’s track record (rehab vs long-term), and confirming how clinical issues (e.g., drains, pain control, transfers) are documented and communicated. Prospective residents and families who prioritize strong short-term rehabilitation and who can closely monitor care may find excellent staff and outcomes here. Those seeking stable, consistently high-quality long-term custodial care should proceed cautiously and verify unit-level performance before committing to a long-term placement.
