Latest news with #medicalerrors
Fast Company
02-08-2025
- Health
- Fast Company
6 tips for managing out-of-control medical bills
BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 6:51 Several years ago, I received a bad medical bill: $150 for an in-network doctor's appointment that my health insurance was supposed to cover with a $30 co-pay. After multiple long and frustrating phone calls over several weeks—during which time nothing was resolved—I gave up and wrote a check for $150. That experience convinced me that medical billing is confusing and error-ridden on purpose. Recent research backs this up. A staggering 80% of medical bills contain errors, most of which are easily preventable. Under our current medical billing system, patients face a horrible catch-22: They can spend money on error-ridden bills or they can spend time getting them corrected. (If they have neither money nor time, then their bills may go to collections.) Covering medical costs under an intentionally confusing system will always be an uphill battle. But until we change how we pay for healthcare as a society, here's what you can do to make medical bills fit better into your personal budget. Take your time paying medical bills Some healthcare providers may send a bill to you before your insurance company has had time to process your claim. If that's what has happened, your balance owed will look much higher than you expect. In that case, the bill may have a blank spot in the section labeled 'insurance payment' or 'plan payment.' Waiting to pay that bill until the insurance has come through will ensure you only pay what you owe. But this isn't the only reason you may want to wait before paying a medical bill. If you expect to receive multiple bills because of a lengthy stay in a hospital or repeated specialist visits because of a particular health issue, it can also be a good idea to hold off on paying until you have received all of the related medical bills. This will allow you to double check that you have not been double-billed for any procedures or services before you start making payments. You don't need to worry that waiting to pay will affect your credit. The time period before unpaid medical debt is reported to the three major credit bureaus was increased from six months to 1 year as of 2022. And as of 2023, medical debt under $500 is no longer reported to the credit bureaus. Request an itemized bill If you had multiple services, your bill may not list them all. Instead, patients often receive a summary bill that lumps all of the charges for services together. But it's impossible to tell if there are any errors in a summary bill, which is why you should request an itemized bill if you don't receive one. While hospitals generally will not send one without being asked, receiving an itemized bill upon request is one of your rights as a patient. The hospital is legally required to send it within 30 days of your request. Also known as a ' superbill,' the itemized bill lists each medical billing procedure code, the amount paid by insurance, and the amount you owe. Check for mistakes With the itemized list in front of you, check for mistakes. Some of the common errors you might find include: Services or procedures erroneously listed multiple times Procedures listed that you didn't receive Charges listed that have already been paid Amounts charged that are above legal limits Charges for more expensive procedures than what you received You may need to look up medical billing codes to make sense of the itemized bill. These codes can generally be found online by typing in the code with the term 'medical billing code.' You can compare the description of the procedure you find online with your bill to see if the codes match the healthcare you received. Don't forget basic fact-checking Unfortunately, some of the most frustrating medical billing problems may stem from getting a basic fact wrong. An incorrect birthdate, patients with similar names, or someone accidentally transposing two numbers in a patient's street address could be enough to trigger an insurance claim denial. While you are checking medical bills for mistakes, make sure you're also looking at your personal information, including your birthday, billing address, date of healthcare service, medications, and other details. Ask your medical provider for a price break Just because the final charge you receive looks more like a phone number than a bill doesn't mean you have to pay that amount all at once. Many doctors accept payment over time with a payment plan and provide a no-fee method of making monthly payments. Providers may alternatively forgive a portion of your bill if you can make an immediate, smaller payment. It's important to remember that doctors are not well served by the medical billing system, either. Doctors often sell medical debt to a collections agency after 90 days of delinquency—but for a fraction of what's owed. Which means medical providers would rather work with a patient to avoid losing money by sending the debt to collections. Partner with a patient advocate Having to navigate all of this while simultaneously recovering from injury or illness seems like the kind of dystopian nightmare that Suzanne Collins would consider a bit over-the-top. Thankfully, help is available via patient advocacy, and there's no fight-to-the-death requirement to access it. Patient advocates work to help patients navigate the healthcare system so they can get the best care for their needs. This includes helping patients to understand and manage their medical bills. To find a patient advocate, start by calling your hospital. Many hospitals have advocates on staff who can help you with the process of understanding your bills, correcting medical billing errors, and applying for financial assistance. Alternatively, you can search for a patient advocate or representative online. Check for advocacy groups that help with medical bills in your state or for patients with a specific condition or disease that you have. If you have a chronic or life-threatening illness, the Patient Advocate Foundation is a nonprofit organization that can help you get and pay for care. Navigating the broken system Medical billing is not set up for clarity, low cost, or ease of use. When a patient gives up and pays more than they owe, the system is (most likely) working as intended. And until collectively we decide to change it, we are stuck with a system that requires an investment of time to avoid overpayment. Until that happens, knowing your rights as a patient can help keep you from making costly mistakes with your medical bills. That includes the right to take up to a year to repay your medical bills before they are reported to the credit bureaus and the right to request itemized charges. In addition, keeping an eye out for mistakes, which are incredibly common, can help you avoid overcharges. Finally, ask your medical provider for any discounts or payment plans they offer, and partner with a patient advocate so the burden isn't entirely on your shoulders. The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR The daughter of a financial planner, Emily Guy Birken never stood a chance: Try as she might to avoid her destiny (undergraduate degree in English with a focus on creative writing at Kenyon, MEd from The Ohio State University, teaching, motherhood), her innate fascination with money turned her into one of the most compelling and relatable writers on personal finance.. Based in Milwaukee and a regular guest on Wisconsin Public Radio, she has written for The Washington Post, USA Today, and many other publications and websites More
BBC News
04-07-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Derby doctor's errors examined after 101 patient deaths
Errors made by a doctor are being reviewed to establish whether they played a part in the deaths of 101 patients.A former radiology consultant at Royal Derby Hospital has been under review, over cardiac MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scans, since concerns were raised by cardiology colleagues in November 2020. Documents seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) showed 1,224 cases between 2013 and 2020, involving the doctor, were looked into as part of the review. The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust claimed it took an "open and transparent" approach with the public in regards to the review and that "no significant harm" had been identified so far. The initial review – due to be published in full later this year – found while there is an expected discrepancy rate of 5% for cardiac MRI scans, an audit of 63 cases found the doctor's discrepancy rate was 37%. That meant it was seven times the accepted rate, presenting an error with one out of every three scans.A discrepancy rate across the whole 1,224 cases has not been provided. Evidence of 'misdiagnosis' The ongoing review found that out of the 1,224 cases, two cases were found to show "definite omission or misinterpretation with unequivocal potential for serious morbidity or threat to life". Of the cases reviewed, 102 were found to show "definite omission or interpretation of finding with strong likelihood of moderate morbidity but not threat to life".Meanwhile, in 361 cases, "clinical significance of disagreement is debatable or likelihood of harm is low", and in 378 cases there was "disagreement over style and/or presentation of the report including failure to describe insignificant features".A total of 176 patients out of the 1,224 assessed have now died, with a "misreported" cardio MRI scan found in 101 of those patients. The medical examiner will now assess if any of the 101 deceased patient cases showed evidence that their misreported MRI, or any associated subsequent treatment delay, was "likely" to or "could" have "contributed to", "caused" or "accelerated" their patients were contacted by the trust. A total of 120 patients had their cases recalled by the trust for further assessment with evidence of "misdiagnosis" "which will have impacted treatment decisions and pathways".The hospital trust apologised for the impact on patients and indicated training and processes were at fault, but said changes had been made. 'Choices taken away' The review into the doctor was due to conclude in January, then believed to have then shifted to April and is still affected patient, who was seen by the doctor in 2014, called the matter a "monumental failure to manage from trust leadership" and said the review had been badly handled. She said she was notified about her misreported MRI nine years after the scan."We are not going to get the full picture because of how long it has taken. They haven't considered the future prognosis for patients."Nurses rely on diagnoses and care plans and there is potential care here that has not been given."This has taken away my choices. Because I didn't have that knowledge, I couldn't make decisions based on correct information and the people treating me couldn't make correct decisions either because of the misreporting of a scan."It is really, really upsetting."Karen Reynolds, a clinical negligence lawyer at Freeths in Derby, who is representing the patient, added she was "shocked" the review had not come to light sooner. "The trust must now be entirely transparent about this review," she said. "It is their responsibility to uphold the duty of candour and do what they can to reassure patients." The trust said the doctor had left the organisation, adding "no concerns have been found about the individual's other areas of practice".The General Medial Council (GMC) - which regulated doctors - confirmed the doctor was still registered with a licence to practise with no fitness to practise case has been brought before the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service by the GMC, the MPTS trust said those involved in reviewing the case at the time - which included colleagues external to the organisation - decided it did not meet GMC referral Gis Robinson, the trust's executive chief medical officer, said: "We have re-seen and personally apologised to the 120 patients who have needed to be followed up as part of this review, and while so far the investigation has found no significant harm has been caused, we absolutely apologise again to those affected for the emotional impact this has had and for the extended time this has taken."Though scans are just one of many elements we use to diagnose a patient and variations in how clinicians read them are expected, our investigation has shown our processes were not as strong as they could have been and we have made changes – with scans now being reviewed as part of a multidisciplinary team, and a percentage of scans externally audited as an additional safety measure."Our priority has understandably been communicating with and supporting those who have been directly affected as we have moved through this process, and we will publish a public report as we normally would once the investigation in complete."
CBC
01-07-2025
- Health
- CBC
Plastic surgeon's 6-week suspension for professional misconduct 'slap on the wrist': former patient
Social Sharing A Manitoba woman who was injured by a plastic surgeon more than a decade ago is worried after the doctor was temporarily suspended for medical errors — and she wants the disciplinary system to change to protect others. For six years, Melanie Drain lived with the end of a drainage tube inside her breast. She says the piece of equipment broke off when her plastic surgeon, Dr. Manfred Ziesmann, yanked the tube days after he performed a breast reduction surgery on her in 2010. Drain, who lives in Stony Mountain, Man., complained to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba. In 2017, Ziesmann was reprimanded and ordered to take a record-keeping course, with the college determining he had failed to include enough information in her medical record, she said. At the time, she felt the decision didn't go far enough and feared more patients would be injured. When Ziesmann, who has been licensed as a plastic surgeon since 1987, was disciplined earlier this year for professional misconduct in connection with three other patients he treated after her, Drain felt her fears were confirmed. "If the College of Physicians and Surgeons had done something more in 2017, this might have saved other people from going through any type of physical harm [like] I had from him," she told CBC News. During a March disciplinary hearing, Ziesmann admitted to displaying "a lack of knowledge, skill and judgment in the practice of medicine" in all three cases, involving surgical procedures for three patients from 2012 to 2023. Under a joint recommendation with the college, he was given a six-week suspension, which began on March 24. He was also ordered to pay the college more than $34,000 in costs. That suspension is a "slap on the wrist" considering the number of complaints involving Ziesmann, which go back decades, said Drain. Gaps in record-keeping Drain appealed the college's decision in her case in 2019, but the regulatory body dismissed it. In a letter shared with CBC, the college said there were no errors in the investigation. The appeal panel also found the doctor didn't show unethical behaviour or professional misconduct in her case, and the breakage of the tube is a known surgical complication. Ziesmann's participation in the record-keeping course offered reassurance to the panel, the letter said. However, the college's latest decision says he admitted to not adhering to the standard of documentation set out by the college. One of Ziesmann's patients signed a consent indicating a larger breast implant would be inserted in her right breast, and a smaller implant in the left — even though the right breast, which already had an implant, was larger than the left. However, the decision said there was no discussion about implant size in his chart notes for meetings with the patient in 2021 and 2022. During the surgery, Ziesmann inserted the larger implant into the left breast and the smaller implant into the right breast, "contrary to the consent form," according to the decision. Ziesmann also admitted he didn't document "sufficient steps" involving the identification of a lesion on another patient, who had developed skin cancer, in 2023, the decision said. Gaps in Ziesmann's record-keeping were also found in the care he provided another patient, who complained about breast augmentation surgery and other procedures between 2012 and 2022. In its decision, the inquiry panel said Ziesmann had a professional obligation to document the conversations he had with that patient on treatment options but failed to do so, breaching various standards of medical practice over the 10 years he treated her. Drain said the similarities between her case and those referred to in the regulator's most recent disciplinary action are concerning. "A person shouldn't be allowed to keep repeating history over and over and over," she said. Ziesmann's lawyer said he would not comment on any specific patient or allegations, except to say that all surgeries carry the risk of many types of complications. "It would be premature and perhaps erroneous to come to any conclusion about any patient complaint without a full and complete understanding of all of the facts and medical issues involved," lawyer Gregory Fleetwood said in an emailed statement. 'College has to prove itself trustworthy': prof While Ziesmann's case points to a number of serious medical mistakes, Arthur Schafer, a professor at the University of Manitoba specializing in bioethics, said it is hard for outside parties to determine whether the college's judgment on a doctor was strong enough. College panels review a great deal of evidence to determine disciplinary action, some of which is not publicly released, so it can be difficult to know how they came to a decision, said Schafer. In this case, he thinks the college did take steps to safeguard the public, referencing both interim conditions Ziesmann was under before the college's March decision — including that he be monitored during surgeries while the college investigated — and the final decision to temporarily suspend him. "That's pretty rigorous," Schafer said. "He will be more carefully monitored than maybe any other physician in the province." But Schafer — who was a patient of Ziesmann's many years ago — said in general, the public should be concerned when physicians repeatedly make mistakes, because it suggests a lack of monitoring. He also said generally, the reason a doctor's licence might not have been revoked is because the college's panel thinks their behaviour can be corrected while protecting the public. "One has to hope that the performance of the college will be more rigorous going forward than perhaps what it has been up until now" in Ziesmann's case, said Schafer, noting it involves repeated mistakes with patient note-taking — a task that is paramount in medical practice, especially as patients are treated by different people. "If the patient's medical record isn't accurate and complete, then discovering what's gone wrong, correcting it, becomes that much more difficult," he said. The disciplinary panel in Ziesmann's March hearing also highlighted the importance of patient record-keeping, citing a decision from Manitoba's highest court that record-keeping is not merely administrative, but part of "proper medical practice and patient care." Schafer said the college's first priority should be to protect public safety, and cases where doctors repeat errors, despite being disciplined, can erode public trust. "The college has to prove itself trustworthy," he said. Patient safety, recovery support Dr. Guillaume Poliquin, an assistant registrar for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, said for privacy reasons, the regulatory body can't comment on the specifics of Ziesmann's case. He said the college is improving its monitoring of doctors who have been disciplined, but wouldn't go into more specifics, saying it's dependent on individual cases. Poliquin also said the college is also undergoing "significant changes" in how complaints about doctors are handled to ensure Manitoba patients are protected. The college is also working to identify doctors who are struggling earlier in their careers, and help them improve their practice, leaving more severe disciplinary actions as a last resort, said Poliquin. "Early intervention is what leads to ongoing success," he said. Serious allegations against doctors can also lead to legal action — as happened in Drain's case. Dissatisfied with the college's decision on Ziesmann, she decided to sue him. The Manitoba Court of King's Bench sided with her in 2023, with the judge ruling Ziesmann had breached the expected standard of care. It's not rare for a patient dissatisfied with a regulator's decision to pursue legal action, but it is rare that they win, said Jacob Shelley, an associate law professor who teaches health-care policy at Western University in London, Ont. In court, the threshold of medical negligence is hard to establish, he said. "[The doctors] are the ones in the room the entire time. They are the ones with the expertise. And so it's a really big hurdle for patients to actually be able to seek compensation," Shelley said. He believes an overarching change is needed to how patients' complaints are treated in Canada, with a stronger focus on patient safety. In cases like Ziesmann's, regulators should consider moving away from the "patient versus physician" model to one where the injured patient is more supported, he said. "We should talk about responsibility. We should talk about adequate training, and making sure people are competent and can meet the standard of care," said Shelley. "These are not easy problems to resolve. But what we do know is that patients suffer more as a result."
Free Malaysia Today
03-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Free Malaysia Today
Experts point out how TV's Dr House often got it wrong
British actor Hugh Laurie played Dr Gregory House in the hugely popular TV series 'House'. (Hugh Laurie Official Instagram pic) ZAGREB : He's the maverick medic who loved to confound the medical establishment with his brilliant, unorthodox diagnoses. But Dr Gregory House, the misanthropic genius who was the star of the long-running 'House' television series, got an awful lot wrong himself, Croatian doctors claim. From a neurologist at work on the wrong end of a patient by performing a colonoscopy, or an MRI scan done by a physician who is clearly not a radiologist, Croatian researchers have pulled the American series up on its medical accuracy in a paper published this month. Denis Cerimagic, a professor at Dubrovnik University, and two fellow neurologists – all big fans of the series – listed 77 errors after analysing all 177 episodes of the show, which ran from 2004 to 2012. 'We focused on the diagnoses of main cases, reality of clinical practice presentation and detection of medical errors,' Cerimagic told AFP. He and his peers – Goran Ivkic and Ervina Bilic – broke the mistakes down into five categories including misuses of medical terminology, misinformation and simple weirdness – something which the show's anti-hero, played by British star Hugh Laurie, possessed in abundance. That limp They included the use of mercury thermometers – which had long given way to digital ones – the term heart attack and cardiac arrest being used interchangeably when they are not the same, and that vitamin B12 deficiency can be corrected with just one injection. Nor is there a universal chemotherapy for all types of malignant tumours, as one episode suggested. But arguably the biggest error of all is that Laurie – whose character's genius for deduction comes from the misdiagnosis that left him with a limp and chronic pain – uses his cane on the wrong side. The stick should be carried on his unaffected side, Cerimagic said, though he understood why the actor had done it because 'it's more effective to see the pronounced limp on the screen'. Their research also found medical procedures being done by specialists who had no business being there, like an infectologist performing an autopsy. At times the series also stretched reality beyond breaking point, with the findings of complex laboratory tests done in just a few hours. And doctors rarely turn detective and take it upon themselves to enter patients' homes to look for environmental causes of illnesses. Not to mention Dr House's unethical behaviour – 'Brain tumour, she's gonna die' the paper quoted him as saying – and the character's opiates addiction. The researchers say they may have missed other mistakes. 'We are neurologists while other medical specialists would certainly establish additional errors,' Cerimagic added. Medical errors Whatever their criticisms, the researchers say that modern medical series are far better produced than in the past, thanks to medical advisors. It is not like some 20 years ago when you had doctors looking at X-rays upside down, the neurologist said. 'Now only medical professionals can notice errors,' Cerimagic said. Despite its flaws, they thought the series could even be used to help train medical students. 'The focus could be on recognising medical errors in the context of individual episodes, adopting the teamwork concept and a multidisciplinary approach in diagnosis and treatment,' Cerimagic said. He said he and his colleagues were taken aback by the response to their paper 'House M.D.: Between reality and fiction' – which is not the first academic study to cast doubt on the good doctor and his methods. 'The idea was to make a scientific paper interesting not only to doctors but also to people without specific medical knowledge.'
Yahoo
31-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What grade did North Ala. hospitals receive from the Leapfrog Hospital Safety report?
NORTH ALABAMA (WHNT) — North Alabama hospitals received grades ranging from an A to two Fs. The Leapfrog Group is an independent national nonprofit focused on patient safety. On May 1, the group released its grade reports for hospitals across the nation for Spring 2025. The report card is like a school grade scale: A, B, C, D and F. These grades are 'assigned to all general hospitals in the United States based on their ability to protect patients from medical errors, accidents, injuries and infections,' the Leapfrog Group said. Hospitals receive a score in multiple categories within the following sections: Infections, Problems with Surgery, Safety Problems, Practices to Prevent Errors and Doctors, Nurses & Hospital Staff. Each section can have up to seven different categories that can be given a performance score of Worse than Average, Average and Better than Average, which plays into the overall hospital grade. Disclaimer: The Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade scores hospitals on their overall performance in keeping patients safe from preventable harm and medical errors. The grades are derived from expert analysis of publicly available data using up to 31 evidence-based, national measures of hospital safety. In the list, 13 North Alabama hospitals were graded, receiving a grade anywhere from A to F. But, which hospital received what grade? Find out in the list below! Based on the data, Helen Keller Hospital is overall considered worse than average in the section titled 'Practices to Prevent Errors.' Specifically, handwashing, safe medication administration, and doctors' orders medications through the computer were in the red zone. That being said, the 'Safety Problems' section, most of the reports from the data suggest the hospital is better than average. For this section, there were seven categories that the hospital was rated on. Five of the seven were labeled as better than average, while one was labeled as average and one was labeled as below average. In previous years, Helen Keller Hospital received a relatively similar score, receiving a C for both Fall and Spring 2024, and a D for Fall 2023 and a C for Spring 2023. Based on data collected from Leapfrog, the Shoals Hospital received a C for its Spring 2025 grade. While this seems bad, the data collected from Leapfrog isn't complete. Out of 32 categories to grade the hospital on, only 14 of the categories are given a performance level. Seven of those 14 rated categories scored better than average, showing up the most in the 'Practices to Prevent Errors' section. The 18 other categories that were not given a performance level were labeled as 'not available.' Based on Leapfrog's website, ''Not Available' means that the hospital does not have data for this measure. This could be because the measure is related to a service the hospital does not provide. For example, a hospital that does not have an ICU would not be able to report data about ICUs. It could also be because the hospital had too few patients or cases to report data for a particular condition or procedure. A 'Not Available' result does not mean that the hospital withheld information from the public,' the group said. The hospital, based on previous reports, has been all over the grade scale. In 2022, the hospital received an F for the Spring but a B for the Fall. In 2023, Shoals Hospital received a C for the Spring but a D for the Fall. For 2024, the hospital received a C for the entire year. DeKalb Regional Medical Center was the ONLY North Alabama hospital to receive an A on its Spring 2025 report card. 14 of the categories were rated as better than average, with the best section being the 'Doctors, Nurses & Hospital Staff.' A point of concern seemed to stem from the 'Problems with Surgery' section, where only one of the seven categories was rated as better than average. The rest were considered average, with one category labeled as worse than average. Still, the hospital received a 0.00 score for this section. The best hospital's score was graded as 0.00, with the worst being 0.327 and the average being 0.014. In years past, DeKalb Regional Medical Center has been consistent in its scoring. In 2024, it received A's across the board for the year. In 2023, the hospital received a C for the Spring but an A for the Fall. The Russellville Hospital received a C based on the data collected from Leapfrog, mainly due to the 'Practices to Prevent Errors' section. In this section, four of the six categories are labeled as worse than average, with communication about discharge labeled as average and the staff work together to prevent errors category blank because the hospital declined to report this information to the public. The best section for the hospital could be considered as the 'Problems with Surgery' section, as four of the seven categories were given a performance score. Two of these categories received an average performance grade, while one received a better-than-average performance score and one received a worse-than-average performance score. The Russellville Hospital, based on data from years past, seems to stay consistent with either a B or a C grade. In 2024, the hospital received a B for the Spring but a C for the Fall, similarly to 2023, where the Spring grade was a C but the Fall grade was a B. Highlands Medical Center seemed to struggle in the 'Practices to Prevent Errors' section of the grading because four of the five categories given a performance score were considered worse than average. The hospital received a score of 15 for this section, simply because the Leapfrog data said the hospital declined to report its performance on this measure, so a score was assigned to reflect the lack of information available. The highest hospital score for this section was a 100, with the average hospital receiving an 80.23 score. The hospital performed its best in the 'Problems with Surgery' category, receiving an average performance score from four of the five scored categories. This grade is an improvement for the hospital, according to Leapfrog data. This is the first time the hospital has received a C since Spring 2022. After that, the hospital has continuously received a D on its report card until now. The North Alabama Medical Center was one of two North Alabama hospitals that received this grade. For the sections that Leapfrog graded on, the 'Infections' section was given the best performance score. Six of the six categories in this section received a better-than-average performance score. The hospital received a 0.00 score, with the highest hospital's score being a 0.00. The average hospital's score was 0.719, and the hospital with the worst score in this section received a 2.850. The section where this hospital could work on more is 'Safety Problems.' Seven categories were given a performance score. Two were scored as worse than average and four were given an average performance score. In recent years, the hospital received a B for 2024, and Cs for both 2023 and 2022. The area for improvement for the Athens-Limestone Hospital is 'Safety Problems.' Of the seven categories, four were given an average performance score and two were given a worse-than-average score. The hospital received an overall 1.00 score for this section. The hospital with the best score received a 0.53, the worst score was a 3.10 and the average hospital received a 1.00 score. The Athens-Limestone Hospital scored the best in the 'Infections' section. Its overall score was 0.00, with the best score for a hospital being 0.00. The hospital with the worst score received a 2.850, and the average hospital score was 0.719. For 2024, the hospital received a D for the Spring and a C for the Fall. For 2023 as a whole, it received a C. Crestwood Medical Center, while receiving worse-than-average performance scores in the 'Doctors, Nurses & Hospital Staff' section, the hospital received better overall scores for the section. Five of the six categories in this section were in the red and one category was rated as average. However, the hospital's score was a 101.54 overall score, with the best hospital's score being 120.00. The hospital with the worst score received a 9.23 and the average hospital received a 117.49 score. The hospital had the best overall performance score in the 'Problems with Surgery' section. Out of the seven categories, two were considered better than average, four were considered average and one was worse than average. The grade of a C is a step up from the most recent grade for 2024, being a D for Fall and a C for Spring. Huntsville Hospital was one of the two lowest-ranking hospitals in North Alabama. The hospital's worst-scoring section was 'Practices to Prevent Errors.' Its overall score was 15, according to Leapfrog. This is because the hospital reportedly declined to report its performance on this section, so Leapfrog assigned the hospital a score to reflect the lack of information available. Five of the six categories in this section were scored. Three of the five categories were scored worse than average while the other two were scored as average. The hospital had the best section in 'Problems with Surgery.' While the performance scores appear to be low, the overall score provided by Leapfrog shows the hospital scored the same as the best hospital's score: 0.00. The average hospital score was 0.014 and the worst hospital scored 0.327. This grade is one step down from 2024, with a grade of D. In both 2023 and 2022, Huntsville Hospital receied a C grade. Madison Hospital was the other hospital in North Alabama to receive the lowest grade. The hospital received almost identical performance and overall scores to Huntsville Hospital. The hospital's worst-scoring section was 'Practices to Prevent Errors.' Its overall score was 15, according to Leapfrog. The average score for this section was 80.23, with the highest score being 100. Madison Hospital's best-scoring section was also 'Problems with Surgery.' While the performance scores appear to be low, the overall score provided by Leapfrog shows the hospital scored the same as the best hospital's score: 0.00. In 2024, the hospital also received a D for the year, which was a small step down from 2023. This year, the hospital received a C grade for the Spring and a D grade for the Fall. Marshall Medical Center North was the only North Alabama hospital to receive a D grade. Based on available Leapfrog data, the hospital received the worst performance scores for the 'Infections' section. Its overall score was 2.452. The best score was 0.00, the worst was 2.850 and the average score was 0.719. The hospital's best scoring section was 'Problems with Surgery.' Three of the seven sections are scored as better than average, two are average and two are scored as worse than average. This grade is consistent with previous Leapfrog data. For 2024, the Marshall Medical Center North received a D for the Spring and a C for the Fall. However, for both 2023 and 2022, the hospital received a D grade. The Decatur-Morgan Hospital-Decatur Campus had four of the five sections scoring in the nationwide best hospital's score: 'Infections,' 0.00; 'Problems with Surgery,' 0.00; 'Practices to Prevent Errors,' 100; 'Doctors, Nurses & Hospital Staff,' 120. The worst section, scored for the hospital, was 'Safety Problems.' In this section, the hospital received an overall score of 1.17. The best hospital scored a 0.53, with the worst hospital scoring a 3.10. This grade is consistent with previous years, considering 2024's yearly score was a B. In 2023, the hospital scored a C for the Spring, and the grade for the Fall was a B. You can find out all the hospitals in Alabama or nationwide that were given a grade on the Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade website here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
