PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The Premier Nursing & Rehab Center of Far Rockaway has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating that it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #319 out of 594 nursing homes in New York, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and #37 out of 57 in Queens County, meaning there are only a few better local options. The facility is showing an improving trend, with the number of issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a notable concern, as it received a 2/5 star rating and has a turnover rate of 43%, which is close to the state average but still below ideal. On a positive note, the center has no fines on record, reflecting good compliance, and offers better RN coverage than 83% of state facilities, which is beneficial for catching potential health issues. However, recent inspections revealed some significant problems, including a failure to maintain clean and safe living environments, with dirty rooms and soiled equipment noted in multiple units. Additionally, the facility did not provide required Medicare notifications to several residents, which raises concerns about communication and compliance with resident rights. Overall, while there are clear strengths, including strong RN coverage and improving trends, families should carefully consider the weaknesses related to staffing and cleanliness.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In New York
- #319/594
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near New York's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for New York. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below New York average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near New York average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Near New York avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 16 deficiencies on record
Mar 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the Recertification Survey from 03/02/2025 to 03/07/2025, the facility did not ensure residents' right to personal privacy and confidentiality...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 03/02/2025 to 03/07/2025, th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #92 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of Hypertension , Neurogenic Bladder with Suprapubic Catheter , Schi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review, and interview during the Recertification Survey conducted from 03/02/2025 to 03/07/2025, the facility did not ensure that all medications and biologicals were stor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews during the Recertification Survey conducted from 03/02/2025 to 03/07/2025, t...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interview during the Recertification Survey from 03/02/2025 to 03/07/2025,the facility did not ensure Minimum Data Set assessments were electronically transmitted to the Cen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/26/23 - 7/3/23, the facility did not ensure garbage was disposed of and maintained to prevent pote...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Citation Text for Tag 842
Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the Recertification Survey from 6...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, and record review conducted during the Recertification Survey from 6/26/23 to 7/3/23, the facility did not ensure the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0582
(Tag F0582)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure appropriate liabi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 07/03/23 at 10:16 AM Maintenance Worker (MW) #1 was interviewed. MW#1 stated they will check the maintenance books in the mor...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/26/23 to 7/3/23, the faci...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review conducted during the recertification survey from 6/26/23 - 7/3/23, the facility did not ensure food was prepared, distributed, and served in accordan...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on record review and interviews conducted during the recertification survey from 6/26/23 to 7/3/23, the facility did not ensure Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) assessments were electronically transmi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews and record review conducted during the Life Safety Code recertification survey, the facility did not ensure all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment were maintained i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2021
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, record review and staff interviews conducted during the recertification survey, the facility did not ensure that residents and/or families were informed and provided with written...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most New York facilities.
- • 43% turnover. Below New York's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 16 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within New York, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway Staffed?
CMS rates PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the New York average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 58%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway?
State health inspectors documented 16 deficiencies at PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY during 2021 to 2025. These included: 13 with potential for harm and 3 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway?
PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by BENJAMIN LANDA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 183 certified beds and approximately 174 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in FAR ROCKAWAY, New York.
How Does Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway Compare to Other New York Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in New York, PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in New York. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway Stick Around?
PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for New York nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway Ever Fined?
PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Premier Nsg & Rehab Center Of Far Rockaway on Any Federal Watch List?
PREMIER NSG & REHAB CENTER OF FAR ROCKAWAY is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.