Excel Care at Manalapan: Soiled Brief Used for Care - NJ
The resident, identified in inspection records as Resident #43, had a documented chronic urinary tract infection history and had been seeing a urologist. Her doctor had classified her as chronically prone to UTIs. She was the one cleaned with her own dirty diaper.
The nursing assistant, identified as CNA #2, told the surveyor she used the soiled brief because it was there, and because her co-worker, CNA #1, planned to shower the resident afterward. She acknowledged the wipes went unused. She acknowledged the resident was not properly cleaned. And she acknowledged, without being prompted, that using a soiled brief instead of a wipe could give the resident an infection.
Every staff member the surveyor interviewed said the same thing.
CNA #3, interviewed first, walked through exactly how incontinence care for a female resident is supposed to work: two washcloths, front to back, no cross-contamination. She said using a soiled brief for cleaning "was not appropriate for infection control purposes because the resident could get an infection."
The registered nurse on the unit said the aides could have pressed the call bell and asked for washcloths. She noted the resident's UTI history directly, calling it a potential infection risk.
The unit manager said a wet washcloth was required. Not optional. Required. She confirmed Resident #43 had been dealing with UTIs since her first day at the facility and had been referred to a urologist, though no specific cause for the recurring infections had been identified.
The infection preventionist put it plainly: even an unsoiled section of the same brief was still a soiled brief. Still dirty. He said he would have told the aides to stop and get the right supplies, because the infection risk was real and the potential outcome was a UTI.
The Director of Nursing said a soiled brief was not clean. She listed what could have been used instead: a clean diaper, a washcloth, a wipe, toilet tissue. Any of those. Not the soiled brief sitting under the resident. She said the doctor had deemed Resident #43 chronically prone to UTIs, and that using a brief with both urine and stool in it "can cause an infection."
Records showed CNA #2 had attended a staff in-service on July 2, 2025, six weeks before the inspection, that covered UTI prevention and proper perineal care technique in specific detail. The training described exactly how to clean a female patient: spread the labia, wipe down the center, use a clean section of washcloth for each stroke, clean each side, rinse, dry, then turn the patient to address the anal area. The in-service named nurses and CNAs as playing "a key role in UTI prevention."
CNA #2 had sat through that training. The wipes were in the room. She used the soiled brief anyway.
The inspection cited the violation at a level of minimal harm or potential for actual harm, affecting a few residents. Whether Resident #43 developed an infection after the incident, the report does not say. What it does say is that a woman already fighting chronic UTIs, already under specialist care, was cleaned with the very thing that should have gone straight into a waste bin, while the supplies that could have protected her went untouched.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Excel Care At Manalapan from 2025-08-13 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Download the official CMS inspection PDF from Medicare.gov
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Corrections: We strive for accuracy in everything we publish. If you believe any fact in this article is incorrect, please contact us with details, and we will review and correct it promptly.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: November 3, 2026 · Our methodology
ACCELA REHAB AND CARE CENTER AT MANALAPAN in MANALAPAN, NJ was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 13, 2025.
The resident, identified in inspection records as Resident #43, had a documented chronic urinary tract infection history and had been seeing a urologist.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.