How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Royal Wood Mill Center
800 Essex Street, Lawrence, MA 01841 (opens Google Maps) · Essex County · (978) 289-5048· 94 certified beds · avg 60 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1990 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: ROYAL HEALTH GROUP (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 25, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 9, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.04
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 9, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 9, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Apr 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 9, 2024 · F-0761 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 9, 2024 · F-0761 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Why it matters: Unlocked or mislabeled medications can be taken by the wrong person or given in error, with serious consequences.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Apr 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. F-0658
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint F-0689
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. F-0658
View all 26 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 25, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Mar 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · F-0609 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · F-0610 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · F-0626 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · F-0825 |
| Apr 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Apr 9, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 9, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Dec 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 1).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 11 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 2 | 0 | D |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityMassachusetts averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.04
Massachusetts average: 3.89
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.46
Massachusetts average: 0.65
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.61
Massachusetts average: 3.51
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | Massachusetts avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.04 | 3.89 | 3.95 | bottom 9% in Massachusetts; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.46 | 0.65 | 0.69 | bottom 24% in Massachusetts; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.61 | 3.51 | 3.50 | bottom 7% in Massachusetts; bottom 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.42 | 0.46 | 0.48 | top 45% in Massachusetts; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 50.0 | 38.2 | 45.8 | bottom 18% in Massachusetts; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 28.6 | 42.6 | 42.9 | top 24% in Massachusetts; top 26% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 3.76, RN 0.57, weekend 3.23.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.76 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Royal Wood Mill Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mamary, James | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 45% | 03/12/2017 |
| Mamary, James | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/12/2017 |
All 2 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Royal Health Group — 12 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Royal Middletown Nursing Center — Middletown, RI · overall 2/5
- Royal of Westerly Nursing Center — Westerly, RI · overall 4/5
- Royal Braintree Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Braintree, MA · overall 2/5
- Royal Cape Cod Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Buzzards Bay, MA · overall 3/5
- Royal Meadow View Center — North Reading, MA · overall 4/5
- Royal Megansett Nursing & Rehabilitation — N Falmouth, MA · overall 4/5
- Royal Norwell Nursing & Rehabilitation Center LLC — Norwell, MA · overall 3/5
- Royal Nursing Center, LLC — Falmouth, MA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
- "If my family member is hospitalized, what is your bed-hold policy and what guarantees their right to return?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the Massachusetts midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 50% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 81 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M I Nursing & Restorative Center | 1.0 mi | Lawrence, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Nevins Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 1.9 mi | Methuen, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cedar View Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | Methuen, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Prescott House | 3.0 mi | North Andover, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Meadows, the | 3.2 mi | North Andover, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Andover Manor Rehab and Nursing | 4.0 mi | Andover, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Vantage at Andover LLC | 4.5 mi | Andover, MA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Whittier Bradford Transitional Care Unit | 5.2 mi | Bradford, MA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Salemhaven | 5.9 mi | Salem, NH | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Haverhill Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center | 6.8 mi | Haverhill, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Andover Forest Post Acute Care Center | 6.8 mi | North Andover, MA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Blaire House of Tewksbury | 7.0 mi | Tewksbury, MA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Essex, MA — 45 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Salem Rehab Center — Salem, MA · overall 3/5
- Saugus Center — Saugus, MA · overall 1/5SFF
- Seacoast Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Gloucester, MA · overall 3/5
- The Mansion at Brigham — Newburyport, MA · overall 1/5
- Twin Oaks Center — Danvers, MA · overall 1/5
- Abbott Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Lynn, MA · overall 4/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 225505.