[fizzbang]

I have a (relatively minor) nit-pick with some of the language in the article.

Early in the article the author writes "Current and former employees from at least 10 UHS hospitals in nine states said they were under pressure..."

However, a few paragraphs later she writes "But scores of employees from at least a dozen UHS hospitals said those facilities tried to keep beds filled even at the expense..."

I don't understand why the employees are from "at least" a certain number of hospitals, unless her sources were unclear about where they worked. And why does this number change?

[projektfu]

As you're learning about the story, you might hear a few things "on background, off the record." That means that you can't really act like you were told that, but you now know that you have a story. So, you start reporting, and over time you get employees asking for anonymity from 10 hospitals to say such and such, and from 12 hospitals to say another thing, and you heard some of this on background. So you can say "at least" but you can't say the full number. If there is a libel or defamation lawsuit, your sources can be reviewed under seal, but since you don't note the source of your background information, you can't state that those sources exist.

[DashRattlesnake]

I read the "at least" language as more-explicitly leaving open the possibility that the problem exists in more widely in the UHS system.