863 Front Street, Binghamton, NY 13905 · Broome County · (607) 722-3463
120 certified beds, about 114 residents a day · Non profit - Corporation · Medicare and Medicaid since 1967
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 335090 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on August 1, 2025, inspectors cited 8 health deficiencies (the New York average is 8.1, the national average 9.2).
Of 25 health citations since September 2022, 2 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (2 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 1 fine totaling $151,625 in the last three years; the largest was $151,625, and the latest is dated August 22, 2024.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 4.02 hours per resident per day, against 3.63 across New York and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.50 of those hours.
54.2% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (New York average 40.3%).
CMS links it to United Methodist Homes, an affiliated group of 2 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 25 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 7/28/2025-8/1/2025 the facility did not ensure sufficient support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service for 2 of 3 resident units (Units 1 and 3). Specifically, Unit 1's and 3's meal trays were consistently delivered after the posted scheduled mealtimes and concerns were identified with the effectiveness of meal preparation and other food and nutrition services. Deficiencies related to food and nutrition services were identified in F 809 Frequency of Meals/Snacks at Bedtime; F 812 Food Procurement, Store/Prepare/Serve; and F 814 Dispose of Garbage and Refuse Properly.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00385403) surveys conducted 7/28/2025-8/1/2025, the facility did not ensure residents had the right to a dignified existence for 2 of 3 units (First and Third Floors) reviewed. Specifically, the First floor meals were served more than 30 minutes late; the Third floor meals were served more than 30 minutes late, and dining table residents were not served together. Additionally, deficiencies were identified in sufficient dietary support personnel to safely and effectively carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service (F802) that led to an undignified dining experience.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 7/28/2025-8/1/2025, the facility did not ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards in one (1) out of one (1) main kitchen. Specifically, the main kitchen was unclean, had damaged freezer storage equipment, improperly stored utensils, and improper storage of food products.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 7/28/2025-8/1/2025, the facility did not ensure garbage and refuse was disposed of properly in one (1) of one (1) main kitchen. Specifically, the main kitchen garbage and refuse areas were not maintained to prevent attraction and harborage of pests.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 7/28/2025-8/1/2025, the facility did not ensure as needed orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days for one (1) of five (5) residents (Resident #14) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #14 had a physician order for as needed Ativan (anti-anxiety medication) that was not reevaluated for appropriateness or discontinuation after 14 days.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 7/28/2025-8/1/2025, the facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources were necessary to care for its residents competently both during day-to-day operations and emergencies. The facility did not review and update the facility assessment as necessary. Specifically, the facility assessment did not accurately reflect the clinical nutrition staff and department heads.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 7/28/2025-8/1/2025, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one (1) of six (6) residents (Resident #4) reviewed. Specifically, during Resident #4's wound dressing treatment Licensed Practical Nurse #8 did not perform hand hygiene when changing from contaminated to clean gloves.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 7/28/2025 - 8/1/2025, the facility did not ensure one qualified individual, who was not the Director of Nursing, was responsible for the facility's Infection Prevention Control Program. Specifically, the Assistant Director of Nursing was not qualified based on education, training, experience or certification to assume the role of Infection Preventionist and the Director of Nursing assumed those duties.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews, during the abbreviated survey (NY00354300) the facility failed to ensure residents remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 7 of 55 residents (Residents #1, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8 and #9) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 who had severely impaired cognition, had a contour mattress and right side bed rail (assist rail) and was not assessed for appropriate alternatives to the bed rail, was not assessed for entrapment risk, did not have the risks and benefits of a bed rail reviewed, and there was no informed consent from the resident's representative before installation of the bed rail. Subsequently, the resident was found with their body out of the bed and their head wedged between the bed rail and the mattress and was pronounced deceased . [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews during the abbreviated survey (NY00354300), the facility failed to ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails to ensure there was no gap between the bed rail and mattress wide enough to entrap a resident's head or body for 55 of 55 residents (Residents #1-#16 and #18-#56) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #1 had a contour mattress and a right side bed rail. The facility did not inspect and regularly check the mattress and bed rail for areas of possible entrapment. Additionally, the facility did not evaluate alternatives to bed rails, review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative or obtain informed consent prior to the installation of bed rails for Resident #1 and all 54 residents with bed rails (Refer to F689). [...]
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interviews during abbreviated surveys (NY00354147 and NY00354300), it was determined the facility and governing body failed to ensure that residents received appropriate quality of care by allowing the following deficient practices to exist, placing residents at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death: F 689 Accident Hazards and F 700 Bedrails. Specifically, the facility's governing body did not establish and implement policies regarding the management and operation of the facility. Subsequently, there were outdated and a lack of operational policies and equipment to ensure resident safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and interviews during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not make prompt efforts to resolve resident grievances for 3 of 8 anonymous residents and for 5 additional grievances (Residents #38 [2 grievances], #47, #79, and #94) reviewed. Specifically, 3 residents from the Resident Council meeting stated their grievances were not always acted upon or resolved and they were not provided with a reason why. Additionally, there were five grievances that did not have documented resolution.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan to meet the resident's medical and nursing needs for 4 of 8 residents (Resident #3, #58, #74, and #93) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #93's comprehensive care plan did not include pain management and hospice services; Resident #47's comprehensive care plan did not include the use of antipsychotic medications; Resident #74's comprehensive care plan did not include self-medication administration or diabetes; and Resident #3's comprehensive care plan did not include ordered interventions for edema (swelling).
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY0032236) surveys conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not ensure each resident received food and drink that was palatable, flavorful, and at an appetizing temperature for 2 or 2 meal test tray (the 8/20/2024 and 8/21/2024 lunch meals) reviewed; for 8 of 8 anonymous residents present at the Resident Council meeting, and for 6 additional residents (Residents #3, #35, #36, #44, #63, and #74) interviewed during initial screening. Specifically, the 8/20/2024 and 8/21/2024 lunch meals were not served at palatable and appetizing temperatures and were not flavorful. Additionally, 8 anonymous residents at the Resident Council meeting and Residents #3, #35, #36, #44, #63, and #74 stated the food was cold and unappetizing.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not ensure food was stored and prepared in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen. Specifically, in the main kitchen potentially hazardous foods were not cooled properly, there were several unclean areas, and the food storage areas contained unprotected food products.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not ensure a resident's ability to safely self-administer medications was clinically appropriate for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #74) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #74 was observed with medications stored in an unlocked drawer of their dresser, and there was no documented evidence the interdisciplinary team had assessed the resident's ability to safely self-administer medication.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not ensure the right to reside and receive services with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #71) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #71's call bell was not in reach as care planned.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification and abbreviated (NY00322036) surveys conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal hygiene for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #6 and #71) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #6 and #71 were not assisted with toileting as planned.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choice for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #3) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #3 did not have their elastic compression bandage (ACE wrap) applied as ordered.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not ensure residents with pressure ulcers received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote wound healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #31 and #58) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #31 did not have a pillow between their left arm and body for pressure relief as care planned, and Resident #58 did not have pressure relief for their heels as planned.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, interview, and record review during the recertification survey conducted 8/19/2024-8/22/2024, the facility did not establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of infection for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #31) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #31's wound care was completed without appropriate hand hygiene, clean supplies, and precautions to prevent contamination of the wound. Additionally, three infection control policies were not reviewed annually as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, record review, and interview during the abbreviated survey (NY00329178), the facility did not ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent accidents for 1 of 7 residents reviewed (Resident #5). Specifically, Resident #5 experienced increased anxiety and aggressive behaviors towards Residents #4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and the facility did not ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent behaviors directed towards others.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review during the abbreviated survey (NY00329178), the facility did not ensure all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse were thoroughly investigated or reported to the New York State Department of Health timely when required for 3 of 10 residents (Resident #6, 9 and 10) reviewed. Specifically, Residents #5 and 6 had physical altercations that were not thoroughly investigated and altercations involving Residents #5, 6, and 9 were not reported to the New York State Department of Health as required.
Inspectors wroteBased on interview and record review during the recertification survey conducted 8/29/22-9/1/22, the facility failed to ensure residents maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #54 and 76) reviewed. Specifically, Resident #54 received an altered consistency diet, had a significant weight loss, did not receive assistance at meals as care planned, and was not reassessed by clinical nutrition staff to address weight loss. Resident #76 had a significant weight loss, was not reassessed by clinical nutrition staff, and had further significant weight loss.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation and interview during the recertification survey conducted 8/29/22-9/1/22, the facility failed to post on a daily basis, at the beginning of each shift, in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors, nurse staffing information including the current resident census and the total number and the actual hours worked by licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care. Specifically, the facility did not post nurse staffing information in an accessible place for residents and visitors as required.
25 fire safety citations on file: 10 on August 1, 2025, 12 on August 22, 2024, 3 on September 1, 2022.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| August 22, 2024 | Fine | $151,625 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | New York | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 4.02 | 3.63 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.50 | 0.71 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 3.36 | 3.18 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.42 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 1.09 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 54.2% | 40.3% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 71.4% | 39.8% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.54 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 4.28 on weekdays and 3.36 on weekends, 21% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 0.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.86 in April to June 2025 to 4.02 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 4.02 | 0.50 | 4.28 | 3.36 | 0.0% | 0 of 90 | 114 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.70 | 0.44 | 3.91 | 3.18 | 0.0% | 0 of 92 | 117 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 2.21 | 0.22 | 2.32 | 1.93 | 3.6% | 38 of 92 | 115 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.86 | 0.48 | 4.04 | 3.42 | 8.4% | 0 of 91 | 114 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| New York, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.55 | 0.68 | 3.72 | 3.13 | 9.8% | 0.1% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review. If you work here, your report helps start one.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $23.36 | $21.04 to $24.99 | 87,990 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $32.30 | $29.52 to $37.00 | 39,400 |
| Registered nurses | $52.62 | $45.60 to $62.34 | 205,810 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | New York | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 27.2 | 14.1 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 6.6 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 22.3 | 12.5 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 2.7 | 6.5 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 16.3 | 13.7 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 17.1 | 20.6 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 7.6 | 9.6 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 0.5 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Elizabeth Church Manor Nursing Home's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (53.8% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
53.8% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · New York: 101 better, 157 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 160 eligible stays.
9.9% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · New York: 12 better, 5 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 155 eligible stays.
6.7% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · New York: 7 better, 21 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 119 eligible stays.
67.0% this home
Median of homes: New York60.6% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 91 residents counted.
1.0% this home
Median of homes: New York0.6% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 100 residents counted.
2.9% this home
Median of homes: New York2.0% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 100 residents counted.
100.0% this home
Median of homes: New York98.5% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 38 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: UMH ECM CORP. CMS links this home to United Methodist Homes, a group of 2 nursing homes averaging 2.5 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berg, Sharon | Corporate director | Individual | 05/29/1996 | |
| Betz, Edwin | Corporate director | Individual | 05/28/2003 | |
| Byrne Colling, Kathleen | Corporate director | Individual | 08/27/2014 | |
| Clark, Douglas | Corporate director | Individual | 12/16/2020 | |
| Crounse, John | Corporate director | Individual | 05/28/2008 | |
| Dirhan, Coleman | Corporate director | Individual | 05/29/2023 | |
| Grillini, Catherine | Corporate director | Individual | 05/29/2023 | |
| Hall, Robert | Corporate director | Individual | 05/29/2019 | |
| Hertel, Alan | Corporate director | Individual | 01/29/2020 | |
| Horn, Janice | Corporate director | Individual | 05/29/2023 | |
| Johnson, Maryann | Corporate director | Individual | 05/25/2011 | |
| Kinsman, Allan | Corporate director | Individual | 05/23/2002 | |
| Lamantia, Salvatore | Corporate director | Individual | 10/03/2017 | |
| Lee, Lisa | Corporate director | Individual | 05/26/2016 | |
| Lewis, Sharron | Corporate director | Individual | 08/31/2016 | |
| Lewis, William | Corporate director | Individual | 08/28/2013 | |
| Mulligan, Roseanne | Corporate director | Individual | 08/27/2014 | |
| Olaviany, Tanya | Corporate director | Individual | 05/29/2023 | |
| Ray, Margaret | Corporate director | Individual | 08/29/2018 | |
| Reid, Philip | Corporate director | Individual | 05/26/2016 | |
| Starr, William | Corporate director | Individual | 05/31/2017 | |
| Testa, Kendra | Corporate director | Individual | 05/29/2023 | |
| Thomas, Charlotte | Corporate director | Individual | 05/30/2018 | |
| Patti, Ronald | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/19/2015 | |
| Picchini, Brian | Corporate officer | Individual | 01/01/2012 | |
| Umh Management Services Corp | Operational/managerial control | Organization | 01/01/2007 | |
| Ahmad, Rana | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 08/27/2024 | |
| Cundey, Chelsey | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/20/2025 | |
| Patti, Ronald | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 01/24/2025 | |
| Ahmad, Rana | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/26/2025 | |
| Cundey, Chelsey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 02/26/2025 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
Licensed assisted living homes in the same town or within 5 miles, each with its New York inspection record.
These are the official offices in New York. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.