Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Far Rockaway Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
The facility failed to maintain a safe and clean environment, with issues such as broken blinds, torn curtains, and rusty equipment observed in multiple areas. Staff reported environmental concerns verbally or in a log book, but the maintenance work book showed no evidence of these issues being logged. The Director of Housekeeping/Maintenance acknowledged challenges in maintaining the environment and stated that an exterminator visits regularly.
A facility failed to ensure a resident's representative was notified of Medicare Part A benefits termination. The Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage was not mailed on the same day as the phone notification, and there was no confirmation of receipt. Interviews revealed uncertainty among staff about the notice's delivery, indicating a breakdown in the notification process.
The facility breached resident privacy by conducting blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration in hallways, as observed during a survey. Two residents were involved, with LPNs performing these procedures in non-private settings, contrary to facility policy. Interviews revealed staff were either unaware or nervous, leading to this privacy violation.
A facility failed to create a comprehensive care plan for a resident with vision concerns, despite the resident's impaired vision and consultations with eye specialists. The oversight was acknowledged by the DON, who noted that care plans are usually managed by unit managers and RNs.
An LPN failed to administer insulin to a resident with diabetes as per the physician's order, mistakenly believing the resident was on a sliding scale. The resident's blood glucose levels were above the threshold for insulin administration, yet the LPN did not provide the prescribed dose. The LPN admitted to not reading the order before testing or administering insulin, leading to repeated errors.
A resident with a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer did not receive the prescribed treatment, and infection prevention standards were not maintained by an LPN. The LPN failed to apply the ordered bordered gauze and zinc ointment, and returned unused supplies to the treatment cart. The facility's protocol was not followed, as confirmed by the Assistant Director of Nursing and the Director of Nursing.
The facility failed to remove expired medications and improperly stored narcotics, as observed during a survey. Expired Lorazepam gel and Dronabinol were found in the medication room, and narcotics were stored in medication carts instead of double-locked cabinets. Staff interviews revealed a deviation from policy initiated by a former supervisor, which the current nursing leadership was unaware of.
A resident did not receive insulin as per physician's orders due to an LPN's misunderstanding of the insulin administration protocol. The LPN failed to administer 19 units of Novolog before meals unless the resident's blood glucose was under 100 mg/dL, mistakenly believing a sliding scale was in use. This error was repeated multiple times, with no documented evidence of insulin administration when required. Interviews revealed the LPN did not read orders before testing or administering insulin, highlighting a significant medication error.
A survey found that medications and biologicals were not properly labeled on a medication cart in an LTC facility. Open insulin vials and inhalers lacked the date opened and resident names. Interviews with staff revealed inconsistencies in labeling practices, despite existing guidelines.
A resident with specific dietary preferences and restrictions was repeatedly served incorrect food items, such as pineapple juice and mashed potatoes, despite facility policies requiring adherence to documented preferences. The meal assembly process failed to ensure accuracy, and staff interviews confirmed awareness of the issue.
During a survey, CNAs were observed assisting residents with hand hygiene without wearing gloves and not performing hand hygiene between residents. The DON confirmed that staff should use gloves and a receptacle for used wipes, while the Infection Control Preventionist noted a lack of specific training or policy on distributing hand wipes.
The facility was found to have environmental deficiencies, including soiled and damaged furniture in the North Unit Nurses Station, and disrepair in visitor and staff bathrooms. Observations noted rusted radiators, broken fixtures, and missing tiles. The Director of Housekeeping cited the building's age as a challenge, while the Administrator acknowledged the need for further improvements.
The facility was found deficient in its pest control program, as multiple flies were observed in resident rooms, the nurse station, dining room, and hallways during a survey. Despite regular exterminator visits and measures like replacing window screens and using ultraviolet lights, the fly issue persisted, indicating ineffective pest control.
Environmental Deficiencies in Facility Maintenance
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for its residents, as observed during a recertification survey. On the South Unit, multiple deficiencies were noted, including broken blinds in Room #13, missing window slats in the dining room, and privacy curtains off the hook in Rooms #16 and another unspecified room. The Director of Maintenance and Housekeeping acknowledged awareness of these issues but stated that replacements for the broken blinds and missing slats were not available at the time. On the North Unit, several environmental concerns were identified, such as wheelchairs with torn armrests and encrusted dirt, rusty metal frames, and a corridor bathroom with a metal frame chair in disrepair. Additionally, the main dining room area had wobbly tables, rusty nails, and missing window slats, while the small TV area had a wall-mounted fan layered with dirt and dust. The maintenance work book for the North Unit showed no documented evidence of these concerns being logged, despite staff having the option to report issues verbally or in writing. Interviews with staff, including a CNA, LPN, and housekeeper, revealed that environmental concerns were communicated either verbally or through a log book. The Director of Housekeeping/Maintenance stated that an exterminator visits twice a week to address vermin issues, and maintenance staff review the log book at least twice daily. However, there was no set schedule for power washing resident equipment, and the Director acknowledged challenges in maintaining a safe environment due to some residents' behaviors.
Failure to Notify Resident's Representative of Medicare Coverage Termination
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident's designated representative was appropriately notified at the termination of Medicare Part A benefits. This deficiency was identified during a recertification survey, where it was found that the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage was not mailed to the representative of a resident on the same day as the telephone notification. The resident was discharged from skilled services, and the representative was informed via a phone message about the last coverage date. However, there was no confirmation that the notice was mailed or received, as the certified mail receipt lacked a delivery date, and the tracking number provided no status update. Interviews with the facility staff revealed a lack of clarity and assurance regarding the delivery of the notice. The Minimum Data Set Director, responsible for issuing these notices, stated that they attempt to contact the representative by phone and involve the Administrator if they cannot reach them. Despite these procedures, the representative reported not receiving any letter, and the Administrator confirmed uncertainty about the notice's receipt. This indicates a breakdown in the facility's process for ensuring timely and documented notification of Medicare coverage termination.
Privacy Breach During Medical Procedures
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain the privacy and confidentiality of residents' personal and medical records during a recertification survey. Specifically, two residents were observed receiving blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration in the hallway, rather than in a private setting. Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were seen conducting these procedures in the presence of other residents and staff, which compromised the residents' privacy. The facility's policy on Quality of Life/Dignity, revised in October 2023, mandates that residents should be cared for in a manner that promotes privacy and dignity, including during treatment procedures. Interviews with staff revealed a lack of adherence to the facility's privacy policies. One LPN admitted to performing the procedures in the hallway due to nervousness, while another LPN was unaware of the facility's privacy policy. The Assistant Director of Nursing and the Director of Nursing both confirmed that blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration should be conducted in private, within the residents' rooms, with doors or curtains closed to ensure confidentiality. The hallways were acknowledged as inappropriate locations for such medical procedures, indicating a deviation from best practices and facility policy.
Failure to Develop Vision Care Plan for Resident
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan for a resident with vision concerns, as required by their policy. The deficiency was identified during a recertification survey, where it was found that there was no care plan created for a resident who had impaired vision and used corrective lenses. The facility's policy mandates that a comprehensive care plan should include measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's needs, incorporating their personal and cultural preferences. However, despite the resident's documented vision impairment and consultations with an optometrist and ophthalmologist, no care plan addressing these issues was initiated. The resident in question was admitted with diagnoses including anemia, malnutrition, and dry eye syndrome. Observations during the survey noted the resident wearing eyeglasses and engaging in activities such as writing. Despite these observations and previous consultations for eye-related issues, the facility did not have a documented care plan for the resident's vision needs. The Director of Nursing acknowledged the oversight, stating that care plans are typically managed by unit managers and registered nurse supervisors, but in this case, the vision care plan was inadvertently omitted.
Failure to Administer Insulin as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that services provided met professional standards of quality, as evidenced by the actions of a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who did not administer insulin to a resident as per the physician's order. The resident, who had diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease and Diabetes Mellitus, was supposed to receive 19 units of Novolog insulin before meals unless their blood glucose was under 100 mg/dL. However, the LPN was observed conducting blood glucose monitoring and deciding not to administer insulin when the resident's glucose level was 114 mg/dL, mistakenly believing that the resident was on a sliding scale for insulin. The LPN admitted to not reading the physician's order before conducting blood glucose testing or administering insulin, leading to repeated failures to administer the prescribed insulin. The Medication Administration Record showed multiple instances where the resident's blood glucose levels were above 100 mg/dL, yet the insulin was not administered. Interviews with the Assistant Director of Nursing and the Director of Nursing revealed that the LPN should have checked the order and consulted with a provider if there were any concerns. The physician confirmed that they had not been contacted to change the insulin orders and emphasized the importance of following the order's directions.
Failure to Provide Proper Pressure Ulcer Care
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide appropriate pressure ulcer care for Resident #7, who was admitted with conditions including Peripheral Vascular Disease, wound infection, and malnutrition. The resident had a Stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer, and the care plan required specific treatments to promote healing and prevent infection. However, during an observation, it was noted that the resident did not receive the physician-ordered treatment, and infection prevention standards were not maintained by the LPN responsible for the care. During the wound care observation, the LPN did not apply the ordered bordered gauze to secure the dressing and failed to apply zinc ointment to the peri wound as prescribed. The LPN also returned unused supplies to the treatment cart, which is against the facility's protocol. The LPN admitted to not notifying the physician about the resident's skin breakdown from the adhesive of the bordered gauze, which could have warranted a change in the treatment order. Interviews with the Assistant Director of Nursing and the Director of Nursing revealed that the facility's protocol was not followed. The Assistant Director of Nursing stated that the wound should always be covered with the ordered treatment and that any concerns with the treatment should be reported to the provider. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the LPN's practices during the wound care observation were not in line with the facility's standards, emphasizing that supplies taken into a resident's room should not be removed.
Expired Medications and Improper Narcotics Storage
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the timely identification and removal of expired medications, as observed during a recertification survey. Specifically, a bag containing eight syringes of Lorazepam gel with an expiration date of 12/29/2021 and 44 capsules of Dronabinol with an expiration date of 01/26/2024 were found in the refrigerator narcotics box in the South Unit medication room. Additionally, it was noted that narcotics were not being stored in permanently affixed cabinets as required by the facility's policy. The facility's policy on medication storage, revised in January 2019, mandates that expired, discontinued, or contaminated medications be removed from storage areas and disposed of according to facility policy. Interviews with nursing staff revealed a lack of adherence to the facility's controlled substance management policy, which requires narcotics to be stored in a double-locked, wall-mounted cabinet during non-medication pass times. Instead, narcotics were being stored in medication carts, a practice that began approximately a year ago following a directive from a former supervisor. The Assistant Director of Nursing and the Director of Nursing were unaware of this deviation from policy. The Director of Nursing stated that discontinued medications should be given to them for proper disposal, but this process was not being followed. The facility's failure to adhere to its own policies and procedures regarding the storage and disposal of narcotics contributed to the deficiency identified during the survey.
Failure to Administer Insulin as Ordered
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from significant medication errors during the recertification survey. Specifically, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) did not administer insulin to a resident as per the physician's orders. The resident was supposed to receive 19 units of Novolog insulin before meals unless their blood glucose was under 100 mg/dL. However, the LPN did not provide insulin coverage if the blood glucose reading was less than 200 mg/dL, mistakenly believing the resident was on a sliding scale for insulin. This error was repeated multiple times, as evidenced by the Medication Administration Records for June and July, which showed no documented evidence of insulin administration when required. Interviews with the LPN revealed that they did not read the orders before conducting blood glucose testing or administering insulin. The Assistant Director of Nursing confirmed that orders should be checked every time medication is administered, and the Director of Nursing acknowledged the need for staff education to prevent future errors. The Nurse Practitioner and Physician both emphasized the importance of following medication administration orders and stated that the failure to administer insulin as ordered constituted a significant medication error. The Physician also noted that they had not been contacted to change insulin orders or informed of the resident not receiving insulin as ordered.
Medication Labeling Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
During a recertification survey, it was observed that the facility failed to store medications and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional principles. Specifically, on the South Unit medication cart, three open insulin vials were found without the date they were opened or the resident's name on the vials. Additionally, one opened vial of insulin lacked a resident's name on both the box and the vial. Furthermore, three inhalers were found without the date opened or the resident's name on the inhaler devices. Interviews with facility staff revealed inconsistencies in the labeling process. A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated that the nurse who opens a medication is responsible for labeling it, but the facility policy does not specify where to label each medication. The Assistant Director of Nursing indicated that insulin should be labeled with the resident's name and the date opened on both the vial and the box, while inhalers should be labeled with a sharpie. The Director of Nursing confirmed that the date a medication was opened should be listed on both the box and the vial, and that inhalers should be labeled with a sticker. Despite these guidelines, the survey found that the labeling was not consistently applied, leading to the observed deficiencies.
Failure to Accommodate Resident Dietary Preferences
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that Resident #80 received meals that accommodated their documented dietary preferences and restrictions. During the recertification survey, it was observed that Resident #80 was served food items that were explicitly listed as dislikes or restrictions on their meal ticket. For instance, the resident was served pineapple juice on multiple occasions despite their meal ticket indicating a restriction against pineapples. Additionally, the resident was served mashed potatoes, which were also listed as a restricted item. The facility's policy requires that food preferences and dislikes be documented and respected, with substitutions made as necessary. However, the process for assembling meal trays, which involves a caller reading out meal ticket instructions and another staff member plating the food, failed to ensure accuracy. The Director of Food Services acknowledged the responsibility of ensuring correct tray assembly but could not explain why the errors occurred repeatedly for Resident #80. Interviews with staff, including a Certified Nursing Assistant and the Registered Dietician, revealed that discrepancies in meal trays were a known issue for Resident #80. The Registered Dietician noted that the resident's dietary restrictions were based on recommendations from a previous hospitalization and had not been clinically evaluated at the facility. Despite this, the Registered Dietician confirmed that the meals should have adhered to the resident's stated preferences.
Infection Control Deficiency During Meal Observations
Penalty
Summary
During a recertification survey conducted from July 21 to July 25, 2024, it was observed that the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices during lunch meal observations in the Main Dining Room. Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) were seen assisting multiple residents with hand hygiene without wearing gloves and did not perform hand hygiene between resident contacts. Specifically, CNA #6 was observed distributing and collecting sanitizing wipes with bare hands, moving from one resident to another without sanitizing their hands in between. Similarly, CNA #1 was observed assisting residents with hand hygiene without gloves and failed to perform hand hygiene between residents. Interviews with the staff revealed a lack of adherence to infection control protocols. CNA #1 stated they were trained to clean their hands before and after resident contact but could not recall performing hand hygiene between assisting residents. The Director of Nursing confirmed that staff were trained to perform hand hygiene before and after resident contact and should use gloves and a receptacle for collecting used wipes. The Infection Control Preventionist noted that there was no specific in-service training or policy on distributing hand wipes, emphasizing the need for a barrier to prevent cross-contamination.
Environmental Deficiencies in Facility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for staff and the public during a recertification survey. Observations revealed that the North Unit Nurses Station had chairs that were soiled, dirty, and in disrepair. Additionally, visitor bathrooms across from the Dietician Office had rusted radiators, a broken toilet paper dispenser, a missing wall light cover, and a rusted wall light cover. The staff bathroom across from a specified room had missing and broken wall tiles behind the sink area. During a tour, the Director of Housekeeping acknowledged the building's age and stated their role in maintaining a safe and comfortable environment, prioritizing safety hazards. The Administrator mentioned plans to order new furniture for the nurse station and noted previous expenditures to improve the lobby, visitor bathroom, and staff bathroom, but acknowledged that additional areas of concern would be addressed.
Deficiency in Pest Control Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was in place, as evidenced by the presence of multiple flies observed during a recertification survey. The flies were noted in various areas, including resident rooms, the nurse station, the dining room area, and hallways. Despite the facility's policy and procedure for pest control, which included maintaining an ongoing program and keeping service visit documentation on file, the presence of flies indicated a deficiency in the program's effectiveness. The Pest Control Log Book for the North areas documented regular exterminator visits from March to July 2024, with no reports of issues on the North Unit. However, observations during the survey contradicted these records, revealing a persistent fly problem. The Director of Housekeeping/Maintenance acknowledged the situation, stating that the exterminator visits twice a week and that efforts have been made to improve the situation, including replacing window screens and using ultraviolet lights with glue traps. Despite these measures, the presence of flies persisted, indicating a failure in the pest control measures.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 679 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 10 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Far Rockaway
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peninsula Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 0 mi | — | 3 | 1 |
| Bezalel Rehabilitation And Nursing Center | 0 mi | — | 5 | 0 |
| Beach Gardens Rehab And Nursing Center | 0 mi | — | 1 | 0 |
| Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway | 0.2 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Queens Nassau Rehabilitation And Nursing Center | 0.4 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Far Rockaway Center For Rehabilitation And Nursing.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.