Overall impression: The reviews for Queens Nassau Rehabilitation & Nursing Center are strongly polarized. Many families and short-term rehab patients report excellent therapy outcomes, a clean/modern facility and kind, skilled individual staff who helped with notable recoveries. At the same time, a sizable number of reviewers allege serious shortcomings — from neglectful day-to-day care to dangerous clinical failures — making the overall picture one of inconsistent quality with potentially severe consequences for some residents.
Care quality and clinical safety: A recurring and alarming theme in the negative reviews is clinical neglect and safety failures. Multiple reviewers reported inadequate hygiene (infrequent baths, failure to shave or groom, nails and teeth not cared for), delayed assistance (residents left in wet/soiled clothing for hours), and poor wound prevention or treatment (reports of stage 3 bedsores). There are specific and serious allegations of untreated infections and sepsis related to poor tube feeding maintenance, falls without appropriate response, and at least one account of a patient’s deterioration and death attributed by the family to facility care. Conversely, other accounts praise the facility’s rehab outcomes — short-term residents reporting real improvement after PT and speech therapy, and named clinicians (for example a speech therapist called Rachel) receiving high marks. This stark contrast suggests inconsistent clinical oversight across units, shifts, or patient types.
Staff behavior and variability: Reviews repeatedly emphasize wide variability in staff competence and compassion. Many reviewers describe warm, attentive, and knowledgeable workers — nurses, CNAs, therapists, front desk staff and supervisors — and several individual staff members are singled out for praise (Ms Faith, Ms Veluz, Rachel). However, an equally large and vocal set of reviews describe rude, disrespectful, or even malicious behavior by staff, poor bedside manner, impatience, and cover-ups. Problems like slow call-bell responses, inattentive CNAs, refusals to communicate with families, and failure to call emergency services are repeatedly mentioned. Staffing levels and supervisory competence are often implicated; reviewers cite understaffing, overworked employees, and calls for management retraining or firings.
Facilities, cleanliness and environment: Many reviewers praise the facility’s renovated appearance, bright rooms, clean communal spaces and pleasant outdoor areas. Other reviews contradict that view, reporting dust, mice seen in patient rooms, and pest problems. Operational issues were also noted: frequent elevator outages, ongoing renovations with residents in place (creating stress and inconvenience), and noisy or chaotic hallways at times. These mixed reports indicate that the physical plant may have improved cosmetically in parts while maintenance and infection-control practices may be uneven in others.
Dining and dietary accommodations: Comments about food are mixed and often tied to dietary needs. Some families praise meals and a pleasant dining environment; others describe very poor food quality (“worse than dog food”), lack of meal customization, and constraints for kosher diners with limited options. Several reviewers said outside food is allowed but not always available, and that the dietician’s presence is not always translated into individualized meal plans.
Administration, communication and billing: Communication and management practices receive frequent criticism. Specific concerns include poor or nonexistent family communication, unanswered calls, skepticism about the social worker’s effectiveness, insurance-driven or opaque billing practices, and complaints about pricing and benefits related to room/board and laundry. Several reviewers describe feeling that the facility is money-driven, practices favoritism, or covers up incidents. At least one reviewer reported being denied admission due to honesty during intake. There are also mentions of suspected bogus five-star reviews, indicating community distrust of the facility’s online reputation.
Safety of personal belongings and operational incidents: Theft and loss of personal items are repeatedly alleged — missing clothing, hygiene items, and even a bank card — creating a major trust issue for families. Other operational incident reports include failure to call ambulances, lack of transparency after injuries, and premature discharges that resulted in readmission to hospital. These incidents, combined with staffing and communication problems, raise red flags about risk management and incident reporting.
Patterns, patient types and outcomes: Several consistent patterns emerge. Short-term rehab patients often report positive experiences: attentive therapists, measurable progress, and timely discharges. Long-term residents and some medically complex patients elicit more critical reviews, with claims of sustained neglect, poor hygiene, and declining health under the facility’s care. The facility’s rehabilitation strengths (PT, speech, TBI/stroke program) are clear in multiple positive accounts, but some families say that those strengths did not translate into safe or adequate ongoing nursing care for patients with complications.
Recommendations for prospective residents and families: Given the high variability, prospective residents and family members should conduct thorough due diligence. Visit multiple times across shifts (including evenings and weekends), observe call-bell response times, check for cleanliness and pest control, ask about staffing ratios and turnover, request incident and inspection records, verify how dietary needs are handled and whether the dietician tailors plans, and ask for references from recent short-term rehab patients as well as long-term residents. When possible, identify key staff (therapists and supervisors) who receive consistent praise and ask to meet them. Review contracts closely for billing, laundry and room/board responsibility, and clarify discharge planning and what happens if a patient’s condition worsens.
Conclusion: Reviews indicate Queens Nassau Rehabilitation & Nursing Center can deliver excellent, rehab-focused care for some patients and has several staff members and programs that families value highly. However, there are also multiple and serious complaints about neglect, clinical failures, theft, pest issues, and management/communication problems. The facility appears to be highly inconsistent — capable of strong outcomes in some cases but failing others, sometimes with severe consequences. Families should weigh both the positive therapy outcomes and the serious negative reports, investigate thoroughly in person, and monitor care closely if choosing this facility.
