THE BENEFITS

Imagining a world without false-positive blood cultures

Who can benefit from using Steripath?

Satisfied female patient
Patients

Avoid the emotional stress and unnecessary treatment associated with bloodstream infection misdiagnoses

Laboratory Male
Laboratory

Avoid unnecessary staff workload from false-positive workups

Confident Nurse
Nurses & Phlebotomy

Confidently take blood cultures from venipuncture and, when applicable, IV starts

Physician Benefits
Physicians

Accurate test results enable appropriate treatment paths

CEO Benefits
C-Suite

A single technological intervention that improves patient care & CMS reimbursement while reducing cost¹

Infection Prevention Professional
IP & Quality

Impact a common source of C. difficile, MDROs, extended stay, HAIs/HACs and unnecessary reporting of false-positive CLABSIs²

AMS Committee
Antimicrobial Stewardship Committees

Alignment with the sepsis protocol, reducing unnecessary antibiotics³

Supply Chain Professional
Value Analysis & Supply Chain

Reduce misdiagnosis of sepsis with an average cost-savings of $79-367 per blood culture¹

Bedside Patient Male

Reduce Patient Safety Risks

Accurate diagnostic testing supports appropriate patient treatment. Protect patients from the harmful, unnecessary effects of a sepsis misdiagnosis by reducing blood culture contamination. A contaminated blood culture can lead to many downstream patient safety risks:

Unnecessary Antibiotic Treatment

Secondary infections like C. diff, MDROs

Acute kidney injury

Antibiotic-associated complications

Extended Length of Stay

Increased exposure to HAC/HAIs

Negative patient experiences (CMS)

Steripath Icon Trans
Supporting Evidence
Baseline w/ Verigene 39.3 Days100%
Steripath w/ Verigene 24.8 Days63%
Reduction in Vancomycin DOT

The use of Steripath demonstrated a 37% reduction in vancomycin days of therapy (DOT) in a clinical study at the Brooke Army Medical Center.

Patient Safety Calculator How many patients are at risk of being impacted by false-positive blood cultures at your hospital?*
Recalculate
0
patients
may be impacted at your hospital Get a Comprehensive Patient Safety Analysis

Drive Antibiotic Stewardship

Blood culture results play a critical role in determining if antibiotic treatment can be de-escalated for patients in the sepsis protocol. Treatment is typically continued for patients with positive blood cultures, even when contamination is suspected. Reducing false-positive blood culture results can guide appropriate treatment and dramatically reduce unnecessary antibiotic treatment.

Frequency of de-escalation

Increased confidence in blood culture results to guide treatment

Hospital-onset antibiotic resistance

Reduce broad-spectrum antibiotic use

 

Antibiotic cost per admission

Cut costs associated with unnecessary antibiotic treatment

"Steripath may be the easiest and fastest route to significantly impact antibiotic stewardship within the hospital."

– Lindsey Nielsen, PhD, CPEP Fellow, University of Nebraska Medical Center

Reduce Hospital Costs

Did you know that each contaminated blood culture costs your hospital over $4,700?¹ The cost of a contaminated blood culture and ensuing misdiagnosis for sepsis can really add up...

Average Associated CostAmount

Single Event

~ $4,739
Annual Cost per Hospital*~ $1,260,000
Annual US Cost~ $5,000,000,000
Confident Nurse
Steripath Icon Trans
Supporting Evidence
1
$ avg. savings per blood culture
University of Houston Publication

The routine adoption of Steripath in the ED resulted in an average savings of $130 per blood culture drawn in a clinical study run by the University of Houston College of Pharmacy.

Contamination Cost Calculator How many non-reimbursable dollars is your hospital losing due to contaminated blood cultures?**
Recalculate
in avoidable hospital cost due to contaminated blood cultures Get a Comprehensive Value Analysis

Impact Quality Outcome Measures

Reduce the threat of antibiotic related C. diff infections, increased length of stay and associated HAI/HAC events. Accurate blood cultures also directly impact the reporting of false positive CLABSIs and their impact on CMS quality outcome metrics.

Reporting of False-Positive CLABSIs

Up to 43% reported likely represent contaminants4

Antibiotic-Related C. difficile Infections

The most important risk factor for C. diff 5

Hospital Length of Stay

Shorten by an average of 2 days¹

Reducing the use of high-risk, broad spectrum antibiotics by 30% could lower CDI by 26%.

– Centers for Disease Control, 2014

Make an impact at your hospital by reducing blood culture contamination

Continue Reading
The Problem

Learn about the consequences of false-positive blood cultures

Read More >
The Challenge

What differentiates Steripath Gen2 from other techniques and methods

Read More >
Steripath Gen2

Blood culture collection & contamination prevention system

Read More >
The Evidence

Explore the independent clinical study results using Steripath

Read More >

References

1. Skoglund, E., et al (2019). “Estimated Clinical and Economic Impact Through Use of a Novel Blood Collection Device [Steripath] to Reduce Blood Culture Contamination in the Emergency Department: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.” J Clin Microbiol. 57: e01015-18
2. Robert Garcia, et al., American Journal of Infection Control, 2017
3. D. Chang, et al. “Impact of Blood Culture Diversion Device and Molecular Pathogen Identification on Vancomycin Use.” Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Conference (Spring 2017)
4. Boyce et al., AJIC 2013
5. Reveles, et al, AJIC 2014
*Patient impact calculator based on: Richard G. Patton Blood Culture Contamination Definitions Can Obscure the Extent of Blood Culture Contamination: A New Standard for Satisfactory Institution Performance Is Needed. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, Available on CJO 2016 doi:10.1017/ice.2016.30
**Cost Calculator based on: Skoglund, E., et al (2019). “Estimated Clinical and Economic Impact Through Use of a Novel Blood Collection Device [Steripath] to Reduce Blood Culture Contamination in the Emergency Department: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.” J Clin Microbiol. 57: e01015-18