As New York medical malpractice lawyers, we regularly review hospital safety data, litigation patterns, and publicly reported outcomes to understand where patients are most at risk for preventable harm. This article is part of a broader series examining every New York City hospital rated by the Hospital Safety Grade program of The Leapfrog Group—not just top-rated institutions, but also those receiving failing grades.
Interfaith Medical Center received a “D” Hospital Safety Grade in Leapfrog’s most recent reporting period (Fall 2025). From a malpractice perspective, that designation matters and should prompt patients to ask careful, informed questions before undergoing treatment.
A “D” grade does not mean that every doctor at the hospital is negligent or that every patient will be harmed. It does mean that, based on Leapfrog’s methodology, the hospital presents a higher overall risk profile, particularly in categories most closely tied to serious medical malpractice cases.
Why the “D” Safety Grade Raises Red Flags
Leapfrog grades are weighted heavily toward outcome-driven measures and transparency, not just written policies. In Interfaith’s case, the “D” rating reflects systemic issues that we frequently see underlying malpractice claims.
1. Limited Transparency on Infections — a Major Concern
Interfaith declined to report several key healthcare-associated infection metrics directly to Leapfrog, including:
- C. difficile
- Central-line bloodstream infections
- Catheter-associated urinary tract infections
- MRSA
- Surgical site infections following colon surgery
From a legal standpoint, infections are among the most common and preventable causes of hospital-based injury. When a hospital does not publicly report infection data, it becomes more difficult for patients to assess risk—and more difficult to identify systemic failures until harm has already occurred.
Hospital-acquired infections are monitored and publicly reported by New York State as part of a mandatory surveillance program. In the most recent available state data (2022), Interfaith Medical Center reported no observed surgical site infections for several monitored procedures, including colon surgery (0 observed / 0.02 predicted, SIR 0), cardiac-associated chest surgical site infections (0 observed / 0.03 predicted, SIR 0), and hip surgery (0 observed / 0.02 predicted, SIR 0). However, the same report showed an elevated rate of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI)—a serious intestinal infection that can affect any hospitalized patient but most often develops after antibiotic use, particularly among older adults or medically vulnerable patients, and can spread from patient to patient through contact with contaminated surfaces or inadequate hand hygiene—with 9 observed cases versus 5 predicted, resulting in a Standardized Infection Ratio (SIR) of 1.81, meaning significantly more infections occurred than expected. Elevated CDI rates are closely scrutinized in patient-safety and medical malpractice evaluations because these infections are frequently preventable through proper infection control and antibiotic stewardship.
2. Procedure Volume Matters in Malpractice Risk
Leapfrog data shows limited achievement in certain higher-risk procedures, including total hip replacement surgery, where the hospital’s annual volume fell below national benchmarks and surgeon volume thresholds were not consistently met.
In malpractice litigation, low procedure volume is a recurring theme in cases involving surgical complications, delayed recognition of errors, and poor outcomes. This is particularly relevant for elective orthopedic surgery, where safer alternatives may exist at higher-volume centers.
3. Post-Procedure Complications and Patient Experience
Interfaith also showed limited performance in:
- Patient experience following elective outpatient surgery
- Unplanned hospital visits after colonoscopy
From a malpractice perspective, these metrics often point to failures in:
- Discharge planning
- Patient education
- Post-procedure monitoring and follow-up
Many serious injury cases arise not during the procedure itself, but after patients are sent home without adequate instructions or access to timely care.
What the Hospital Appears to Do Well — and Why That Still Isn’t Enough
Leapfrog data also shows that Interfaith meets or exceeds standards in several important areas:
- Informed consent processes (including interpreters and teach-back methods)
- Medication ordering, reconciliation, and barcode administration
- Hand hygiene monitoring
- Leadership accountability and safety culture
- Formal policies for responding to Never Events, including disclosure and cost waivers
From a legal standpoint, these strengths suggest that policies exist. However, malpractice cases are rarely about whether a policy existed—they are about whether it was followed consistently and effectively when it mattered most.
What Patients Should Consider Before Receiving Care Here
Based on publicly available data and the types of cases we routinely handle, patients should approach care at Interfaith with heightened awareness, particularly in the following situations:
Care That May Be More Appropriate
- Routine medical admissions and stabilization
- Medication-dependent care requiring reconciliation and monitoring
- Short-stay or outpatient procedures with clear, structured follow-up
Situations That Warrant Extra Caution or a Second Opinion
- Elective or complex surgeries, especially orthopedic procedures
- Infection-sensitive care where transparency is critical
- Outpatient procedures with known complication risks
Patients should ask:
- How often does this hospital—and my specific physician—perform this procedure?
- How are complications tracked and disclosed?
- Who is responsible for follow-up after discharge, and how do I reach them?
Legal History and Why It Matters
Like many large urban hospitals, Interfaith Medical Center has been named in medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits over the years, including cases that have proceeded through New York trial courts and the Appellate Division. Publicly available court decisions show claims alleging failures in diagnosis, treatment, and hospital care, with courts addressing issues such as departures from accepted medical practice, causation, and procedural compliance. Because most medical malpractice cases resolve confidentially before trial, reported decisions represent only a portion of filed claims. From a patient-safety and legal perspective, the relevance of this history lies not in any single case, but in whether hospitals identify risks, disclose errors, and correct systemic issues to prevent repeat harm.
Bottom Line From a Medical Malpractice Lawyer
Interfaith Medical Center’s “D” Leapfrog Safety Grade signals higher-than-average risk, particularly in areas closely associated with preventable medical harm: infections, surgical experience, and post-procedure outcomes.
Patients checking in should:
- Ask specific, informed questions
- Understand who oversees each phase of care
- Demand clear discharge and follow-up plans
Medical malpractice most often results from breakdowns in communication, execution, or oversight—not from a lack of written policy. Knowing a hospital’s safety profile before care begins can make a meaningful difference in outcomes.
If You Believe You Were Harmed at Interfaith Medical Center
If you or a loved one believe you suffered medical malpractice at Interfaith Medical Center in Brooklyn—whether due to a delayed diagnosis, surgical complication, hospital-acquired infection, medication error, or inadequate post-procedure care—it is important to speak with experienced counsel as soon as possible. Our Brooklyn medical malpractice attorneys regularly investigate claims involving Brooklyn hospitals and understand how to evaluate systemic safety failures, medical records, and liability issues specific to these facilities. A prompt legal review can help preserve evidence, protect your rights, and determine whether you may be entitled to compensation under New York law.