The reviews for Brooklyn Queens Nursing Home are highly mixed, with a wide gulf between glowing reports of rehabilitation success and deeply concerning accounts of neglect, safety lapses, and poor management. A recurring positive theme is the rehabilitation program: numerous families praise physical and occupational therapy teams as knowledgeable, intensive, and effective — in some cases enabling quick recoveries and successful discharges. Several reviewers specifically note seven-day rehabilitation schedules, personalized treatment plans, and staff who go out of their way to help residents regain strength and function. Named staff (for example, Mr. Clark, Maria, Natasha, Jean, Ms. Francis, and Ms. M.) receive repeated commendations, and many families describe feeling that their loved ones were treated like family by particular nurses, CNAs, and front-desk personnel. In addition, a number of reviews report exceptional cleanliness and strong COVID-19 sanitization practices, good initial intake experiences, and pleasant visitation or day-room environments.
Contrasting sharply with the positive comments are multiple, serious allegations about care quality and safety. Medication management problems recur throughout the reviews: missed doses, delayed medications, weekend issues with controlled substances, and in at least some accounts, dangerous omissions such as no insulin orders and lack of glucose monitoring. Reviewers describe grave clinical consequences—sugary juice given instead of appropriate diabetic care, overdoses when illicit drugs were allegedly allowed on premises, patient deterioration leading to paramedic calls and hospital transfers, and even fatalities in which families believe care lapses contributed. These reports highlight systemic risks: missed vital checks, inadequate pain management, and inconsistent supervision that have led to falls (including beds without rails), wounds or stitches reportedly mismanaged, and other preventable harms.
Facility conditions, dining, and housekeeping are another area of stark divergence. Some families praise the facility as clean, well-maintained, and sanitized; others describe it as dirty, prison-like, or in urgent need of overhaul. Specific negative reports include stained linens with bodily fluids, poorly maintained bathrooms, and withheld bed changes. Dining feedback is similarly split: several reviewers call meals substandard, inedible, or overly limited (peanut butter and jelly sandwiches cited), while others report good food and diet monitoring. These conflicting accounts suggest uneven standards across units or shifts — some areas or teams appear to maintain high cleanliness and dining standards, while others fall far short.
Staff behavior and communication emerge as another polarized theme. Many reviewers praise particular staff as caring, patient, and communicative, noting nurses and CNAs who are proactive and respectful and social workers who advocate for residents. Conversely, numerous families recount rude, belittling, or abusive interactions with staff and security guards, dismissive supervisors, and social workers who are uncooperative or absent when needed. Communication problems include long phone wait times, unanswered questions, incomplete admission paperwork, and lack of family care-plan meetings. Several reports specifically request management responsiveness and better social work involvement, indicating that families often feel left out of critical care decisions.
Allegations of theft, fabricated positive reviews, and staff dishonesty further damage trust in the facility. Multiple reviewers claim items went missing or that staff lied about care or meal delivery, while others accuse the facility of artificially inflating positive feedback. Even where clinical staff or therapists are praised, these credibility concerns contribute to an overall sense of unpredictability and uneven oversight. Understaffing is frequently cited as an underlying cause—staff shortages and variable nurse availability likely drive many of the delays, missed medications, and poor hygiene/housekeeping outcomes described.
Taken together, the reviews paint a facility with pockets of strong clinical and rehabilitative care but also recurring, serious problems that pose risks to resident safety and dignity. The variability between positive and negative accounts suggests major inconsistencies in staffing, leadership, and unit-level practices: some shifts or teams deliver excellent, family-centered care, while others appear neglectful or even abusive. For anyone considering this nursing home, the pattern in these reviews argues for careful, specific inquiries before admission: ask about medication administration policies (especially for diabetes and controlled meds), staffing ratios by shift, fall-prevention measures (bed rails, supervision), infection and wound care protocols, food service routines, and documented care-plan meetings. Families should also request to meet the unit manager, clarify the role and availability of social workers, and get names of staff who will be primarily responsible for care.
In summary, Brooklyn Queens Nursing Home receives both strong praise (notably for rehab/PT, some nurses/CNAs, and certain administrative staff) and serious criticism (notably for medication safety, cleanliness in some areas, staff behavior, and communication). The extent and severity of negative reports — including alleged neglect, theft, and clinical lapses that required emergency intervention — are significant and recurring enough that prospective residents and families should approach placement cautiously, conduct thorough on-site assessments, and maintain close oversight if they choose this facility. Equally, families already experiencing positive interactions should still verify procedures and escalation paths to ensure high-quality, consistent care continues across all shifts and units.
