Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
A standard survey is most likely before around December 2026
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 Community Care Center Of Hondo during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of wandering was able to leave the facility unsupervised, crossing a street and reaching a nearby store. Despite documented behaviors indicating elopement risk, the resident's risk assessment was scored as zero, and no additional supervision or safety interventions were implemented. Communication lapses among staff and failure to follow the facility's elopement policy contributed to the incident.
The facility's kitchen failed to meet professional standards for food storage and labeling. A container of Thick-it was found with a scoop inside, and two large containers of dry cereal were unlabeled and undated. The Dietary Manager admitted the oversight and acknowledged the risk of foodborne illness due to improper labeling and storage practices.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment was inappropriately referred to as a 'feeder' in their clinical record, contrary to the facility's dignity policy. The resident required assistance with eating due to dementia and was spoon-fed by staff. The interim DON acknowledged the term's use was unacceptable and not aligned with facility expectations.
The facility failed to provide the required minimum space of 80 square feet per resident in four multiple occupancy rooms. Rooms designated for three residents were found to be below the required space per resident, with measurements ranging from 72.3 to 76.0 square feet per resident. The Administrator confirmed the deficiency and sought to continue room waivers.
Failure to Prevent Resident Elopement Due to Inadequate Supervision and Risk Assessment
Penalty
Summary
A deficiency occurred when a resident with dementia, who was admitted for hospice respite care and was severely cognitively impaired, was able to elope from the facility. The resident was independently ambulatory, had a history of wandering, and required supervision, as documented in multiple progress notes and care plans. Despite these documented risks, the resident's elopement risk assessment was scored as zero, indicating no risk, even though the assessment noted wandering behaviors. The facility did not have a wander guard system, and the front doors were not locked. On one occasion, the resident attempted to elope but was stopped by a nurse. The following day, the resident successfully exited the facility by leaving with a church group and was later found at a nearby store across a two-lane street and near a four-lane highway. Staff interviews revealed that the resident was missing for approximately 10-20 minutes before being located and returned to the facility. Documentation and staff statements confirmed that the resident was not properly identified as an elopement risk, and interventions such as increased supervision or physical barriers were not implemented prior to the incident. Interviews with staff and review of records indicated lapses in communication and assessment. The night nurse was not informed of the resident's wandering behaviors by the previous shift, and the Assistant Director of Nursing was unaware of the resident's elopement attempt until after the successful elopement. The facility's elopement policy required identification and care planning for residents at risk, but these procedures were not followed, resulting in the resident's unsupervised exit from the facility.
Food Storage and Labeling Deficiencies in Kitchen
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to professional standards for food storage, preparation, distribution, and service in its kitchen, as observed during a survey. A container labeled Thick-it was found with a scoop stored inside, which is against the facility's policy and could lead to cross-contamination or foodborne illness. Additionally, two 5-gallon clear food storage containers filled with dry cereal were observed to be unlabeled and undated, contrary to the facility's policy that requires dry foods to be labeled and dated when removed from their original packaging. The Dietary Manager acknowledged during an interview that the containers with dry cereal were filled that day and were not labeled due to oversight. The manager confirmed that it is the responsibility of all staff to label foods when opened and that failing to do so increases the risk of foodborne illness. The manager also stated that storing scoops inside food containers is not common practice and could lead to cross-contamination. The facility's policy and the U.S. FDA Food Code were reviewed, highlighting the requirement for proper labeling and storage of in-use utensils to prevent contamination.
Resident Referred to as 'Feeder' in Clinical Record
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity, as evidenced by the use of inappropriate terminology in the clinical record of a resident. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including altered mental status, dysphagia oral phase, and unspecified dementia, was referred to as a 'feeder' in a progress note. This terminology was used in the context of discussing the resident's need for assistance with eating due to severe cognitive impairment, as indicated by a BIMS score of 04. The resident required assistance with activities of daily living, including eating, and was spoon-fed by staff. The facility's policy on Quality of Life - Dignity, revised in August 2009, emphasizes that residents should be treated with dignity and respect at all times, including being addressed by their name of choice and not labeled by their care needs. During an interview, the interim DON acknowledged that the use of the term 'feeder' was unacceptable and not in line with the facility's expectations. The nurse who wrote the progress note was not a full-time staff member and was not present during the survey period.
Deficiency in Resident Room Space Requirements
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that four of its multiple occupancy resident rooms provided the minimum required space of 80 square feet per resident. Specifically, rooms designated for three residents were found to be below the required space per resident. Room #A5 measured 217 square feet, equating to 72.3 square feet per resident, with one resident residing in the room. Room #A6 measured 220.5 square feet, equating to 73.6 square feet per resident, with no residents residing in the room. Room #A9 measured 228 square feet, equating to 76.0 square feet per resident, with two residents residing in the room. Room #A11 measured 225 square feet, equating to 75.0 square feet per resident, with one resident residing in the room. Additionally, room #A11 was observed to have two light fixtures and two call light systems visible. The Administrator confirmed that these four rooms were below the required 80 square feet per resident and expressed a desire to continue the room waivers for these rooms. A review of the Bed Classification Form indicated that these rooms were certified for three residents per room.
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 17 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — 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 Hondo
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medina Valley Health & Rehabilitation Center | 18.7 mi | — | 11 | 0 |
| Devine Health & Rehabilitation | 19 mi | — | 6 | 0 |
| Lytle Nursing Home | 20.1 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Avir At Bandera | 25.1 mi | — | 2 | 0 |
| Cedar Creek Nursing And Rehabilitation Center | 26 mi | — | 16 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Community Care Center Of Hondo.
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.