Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Objective: We examined five common targets for diagnostic stewardship that have been associated with improved patient outcomes. For each, we estimated the financial and reputational impact of each intervention on a typical 200 bed community hospital. These estimates can be adjusted for individual hospital estimates. Results: We found consistent savings and potential improvements in hospital metrics associated with these different diagnostic stewardship interventions. Clostridioides difficile (CDI) diagnostic stewardship showed $125,617 expected savings plus a likely additional 75% reduction in the hospital-acquired condition (HAC) CDI metric. Urine culture stewardship showed $34,111–$92,361 in savings with an additional 30% reduction in the HAC catheter-associated urinary tract infection metric. Procalcitonin de-implementation showed $78,938 expected savings from test discontinuation. Expanded respiratory pathogen panel stewardship showed $383,650–$668,000 in savings, depending on degree of reduction and replacement with focused viral testing. Blood culture stewardship showed $1,860,800 in savings with an additional 33%–80% reduction in HAC central line associated bloodstream infection and MRSA bacteremia metrics. Conclusions: In total, a 200-bed hospital implementing all five interventions could expect an approximate $2,482,616–2,825,216 in laboratory and clinical savings. These interventions would also improve many HAC metrics, providing an additional $200,000–$600,000 in savings, depending on baseline performance. Finally, reputation metrics, such as Leapfrog grades, would also improve.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turbett et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: