Who can benefit from using Steripath?
Avoid the emotional stress and unnecessary treatment associated with bloodstream infection misdiagnoses
Avoid unnecessary staff workload from false-positive workups
Nurses & Phlebotomy
Confidently take blood cultures from venipuncture and, when applicable, IV starts
Accurate test results enable appropriate treatment paths
A single technological intervention that improves patient care & CMS reimbursement while reducing cost¹
IP & Quality
Impact a common source of C. difficile, MDROs, extended stay, HAIs/HACs and unnecessary reporting of false-positive CLABSIs²
Antimicrobial Stewardship Committees
Alignment with the sepsis protocol, reducing unnecessary antibiotics³
Value Analysis & Supply Chain
Reduce misdiagnosis of sepsis with an average cost-savings of $79-367 per blood culture¹
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
Extended Length of Stay
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.
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.
"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 Cost||Amount|
|Annual Cost per Hospital*||~ $1,260,000|
|Annual US Cost||~ $5,000,000,000|
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.
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.
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
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