More than 20% of residents who have been in long‐term care (LTC) facilities for 2 or more years will develop at least one pressure ulcer (PU). Residents suffer pain, disfigurement, and decreased quality of life, and their risk of illness and death increases. LTC facilities face censure from residents, their families, and surveyors and the threat of expensive lawsuits. Lawsuits are typically based on contentions of residents with a PU—or their advocates—that the LTC facility was negligent and failed to provide the care that, by industry standards, it must provide to prevent or manage such wounds (managing pressure, incontinence, and nutrition). In this article, data from 1999 and 2002 are presented, showing that lawsuits related to PUs are increasingly common and costly for LTC owners and care providers. Residents realized some type of recovery against the facility in 87% of the cases (verdicts for the resident plus settlements) and were awarded amounts as high as $312 million in damages. Even LTC administrators who believe that care in their facility equals or exceeds industry standards often settle lawsuits out of court to avoid jury verdicts. The data also show that jury awards were highest for PUs caused by multiple factors and that the highest awards for PUs caused by a single factor were seen when that factor was inadequate nutrition. LTC providers can help improve the health and quality of life of their residents, improve survey results, and minimize their risk of expensive lawsuits by developing, implementing, and documenting a plan of basic measures to prevent PUs.

Objectives: To identify resident, wound, and treatment characteristics associated with pressure ulcer (PrU) healing in long‐term care residents.Design: Retrospective cohort study with convenience sampling.Setting: Ninety‐five long‐term care facilities participating in the National Pressure Ulcer Long‐Term Care Study throughout the United States.Participants: Eight hundred eighty‐two residents, aged 18 and older, with length of stay of 14 days or longer, who had at least one Stage II to IV PrU.Measurements: Data collected for each resident over a 12‐week period included resident characteristics, treatment characteristics, and change in PrU area. Data were obtained from medical records, Minimum Data Set, and other records.Results: Two multiple regression models, one for each stage grouping (Stage II, Stage III and IV), were completed. The area of Stage II PrU was reduced more with moist (F=21.91, P<.001) than with dry (F=13.41, P<.001) dressings. PrUs cleaned with saline or soap showed less decrease in area (F=12.34, P<.001) than PrUs cleaned with other cleansers such as antiseptic, antibiotic, or commercial cleansers. Change in area of Stage III and IV PrUs was related to sufficient enteral feeding (F=5.23, P=.02), enteral feeding without higher acuity levels (F=3.94, P=.048), size of PrU (very large (F=120.89, P=.001) and large (F=27.82, P=.001)), and type of dressing (moist (F=14.70, P<.001) and dry (F=5.88, P=.02)). Stage III and IV PrUs increased in area when debrided (F=5.97, P=.02). The overall models were significant (Stage III and IV, F=20.30, coefficient of determination (R2)=0.06, P<.001; Stage II, F=40.28, R2=0.13, P<.001) but explained little of the variation in change in PrU area.Conclusion: In this sample of nursing facility residents, use of moist dressings (Stage II, Stage III and IV) and adequate nutritional support (Stage III and IV) are strong predictors of PrU healing.