I would like to recommend that Debbie Jeppesen be nominated for a DAISY Award, or something comparable, for some critical work that she did in uncovering a serious electrocardiography misadventure. As I was reading ECGs this morning, I noted that a patient in ICU who I had cardioverted yesterday now had an ECG suggesting that he had had a new lateral wall myocardial infarct. The ECG pattern was explainable by a limb lead switch and I simply read the ECG out as reversed limb leads. Ms. Jeppesen, as part of her routine care of cardiac patients, apparently goes back and looks at the cardiologist’s reading of the ECGs. She saw my reading of reversed leads and took it upon herself (with an appropriate order) to repeat the ECG—with methodical attention to correct limb lead positioning. She then compared that ECG to the prior ECGs and noted that it was (1) different from the ECG done yesterday and (2) identical to the ECG done earlier this morning. She was not going to let this lie and called me to report that there is something wrong because she had 2 sequential ECGs with either a new lateral wall infarct or a lead reversal that wasn’t. She offered to hook the patient back up and have me come up to try to trouble shoot this. When I arrived in ICU she had the patient hooked up to the machine, with the electronic ECG view ready for review. We confirmed together that all of the labelled leads were in their correct locations. We then traced the wires back from the patient end to the connector end and discovered that the right arm lead and lead V2’s connector pins had been placed in reverse orientation. I.e. the right arm lead was connected to the lead V2 input, and vice versa. We connected the pins correctly and the ECG then normalized, back to the appearance it had yesterday (without a new lateral wall infarct). At this point I was satisfied that the problem was solved, and we could move on. Debbie said something to the effect of “wait a minute, that means other ECGs done this morning are probably wrong as well.” She identified the other patient who had had an ECG on that machine this morning and we pulled up his ECG. Sure enough, the recording demonstrated reversal of the right arm lead and V2—but you could only tell in retrospect. What had been read on the erroneous ECG was a new septal myocardial infarct (!). Debbie had the ECG repeated on that patient and demonstrated that the ECG normalized, with no evidence of a septal infarct. Armed with this information, I was able to go back into the erroneous ECGs and correctly label them as having been done with reversed right arm and V2 leads. If this had not been recognized in a timely manner, we could have had a series of patients receiving false diagnoses of new infarcts, potentially leading to a wasteful and embarrassing transfer downtown at best, or potentially an unnecessary cardiac catheterization at worst. I think that we all owe Debbie our thanks for her dogged pursuit of the right answer here and her refusal to accept this situation as just a one-off error.