AssureCare Adult Home #3 in Lakewood, WA

Memory care communities with a similar price nearby

• from -$500 / mo

  Hummingbird Homecare

  5 from 24 reviews

  $3,000 / month

  14.1 miles away
• from +$500 / mo

  Riverton Home Care

  5 from 17 reviews

  $4,000 to $5,000 / month

  24.0 miles away
• from +$500 / mo

  Canterwoods Estate AFH

  5 from 17 reviews

  $4,000 to $5,500 / month

  18.5 miles away
• from -$500 / mo

  Home Care in Kent Inc.

  5 from 16 reviews

  $3,000 to $3,500 / month

  20.9 miles away
• About the same

  Twin Lakes Haven Adult Family Home

  5 from 14 reviews

  $3,500 to $8,000 / month

  12.7 miles away

Cons

• The facility nearly killed his son due to negligence.
• The facility was fined $4500 by DSHS.
• Management and staff did not know how to read a glucose monitor, even with an acutely diabetic patient on site.
• The reviewer contemplated suing for wrongful death.
• The reviewer forwarded the report to Western State Hospital, underscoring the severity of the issue.

Review

AssureCare Adult Home #3 in Lakewood is best suited for residents with minimal medical complexity who can tolerate a very low-profile, small-home model of care and who do not require consistent clinical oversight. The sole, highly negative review on record paints a stark picture: serious gaps in medical competence, particularly around diabetes management, and a facility culture that appears unable to recognize or respond to urgent health needs. In practical terms, this community should be ruled out for anyone with insulin-dependent diabetes, a history of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia, or any condition that demands reliable monitoring, rapid intervention, or formal staff training in clinical tasks. For families weighing care options, this is a setting to avoid unless the loved one’s needs truly minimize the risk and there is a concrete plan for outside medical support.

Those considering alternatives should focus on situations where medical oversight is nonnegotiable. Residents with diabetes, heart or kidney issues, cognitive impairment requiring supervision, or medications that require precise timing and monitoring will likely encounter unacceptable risk here. Prospective families should look for facilities with on-site nurses or robust nursing policies, clear protocols for glucose monitoring and emergency response, and demonstrable training in common conditions that require timely medical action. In short, if medical needs exist or could emerge, the safer course is to pursue a setting with verifiable clinical capability rather than a home-like environment that lacks such fundamentals.

In weighing potential positives against the reported failures, there are effectively none documented in the available account. The review emphasizes negligence, a lack of staff competency, and a breakdown in basic medical monitoring that would be incompatible with safe care for even moderately medically complex residents. Because no meaningful advantages are described, the main cons do not encounter any credible offset. The risk calculus here tip(s) decisively toward seeking an option with established medical oversight and a culture of proactive resident safety, rather than relying on a minimalist care model that cannot guarantee timely, knowledgeable responsiveness.

Regulatory and safety signals inside the review reinforce the concern. The facility was fined by the state (DSHS), signaling recognized deficiencies in care practices. The account notes a resident with acute diabetes who was not supported by staff capable of reading a glucose monitor, a fundamental skill for any setting serving adults with diabetes. The review also mentions that the incident was serious enough to be reported beyond the home, with potential implications for hospitalization and, worst-case, wrongful death exposure. These elements collectively mark AssureCare Adult Home #3 as a high-risk option that warrants extreme caution and a strong preference for alternatives with proven medical governance.

For families conducting due diligence, several concrete questions and steps should guide the process. Request recent survey reports and any corrective-action plans, and verify the presence of licensed nursing staff on site 24/7 or schedule-based coverage. Insist on written diabetic-care protocols, including glucose monitoring, insulin administration, hypoglycemia/hyperglycemia management, and emergency transfer procedures. Review staffing ratios, training records, and competency assessments for all direct-care staff, with emphasis on medical and medication-management capabilities. Speak with neighboring facilities about their medical oversight and ask for patient testimonials or case histories that address how emergencies are managed. If possible, arrange trial visits to observe how staff respond to routine needs and potential red-flag situations.

The bottom line is unequivocal: this community is not a viable option for anyone with real medical needs or for families unwilling to accept substantial risk. Alternatives with transparent oversight, higher staffing standards, and documented safety protocols should be prioritized. When selecting a care setting, the focus must be on verifiable clinical capability, proactive emergency planning, and a track record free of serious regulatory action. In deciding, families should favor environments where staff demonstrate current competency, residents receive timely and appropriate medical attention, and safety is embedded in daily operations.