Situate™ Detection SyStem

better experience• 100%sensitivityandspecificityfarsurpassessurgicalcountsandX-rays1

• Unparalleleddetectionofmisplacedspongesthroughfat,densetissue,bloodandboneaswellasnearmetal

FaSt anD eFFicient• EasilyintegratesintoexistinghospitalprotocolswithoutdisruptingORworkflow

• User-friendlyinterfacedeliversfastfeedbackwithminimaldistraction

reDuceD riSk• Supplementsyourhospital’smanualspongecountingprotocols

• AdherestoAORN,JCAHO,andACSrecommendationsforspongemanagement

• Empowersyoutofurtherprevent“neverevents”

FaSt eFFicient Sponge MAnAgeMenT

reDuceD coStS

AleadingUSconsortiumofacademicmedicalcenterscomparedRSSincidenceoversixyearsamongfivefacilitiesthatuseSituate™Technology(definedasusingadetectionmat,wand,orcombinationofboth)againstfivethatrelysolelyonmanualspongecounts.TheresultsshowthatSituate™technologyusersenjoyedbothefficiencyandcost-effectivenessadvantagesovertheirmanualspongecountingcomparisongroup.

Chartinterpretedfromstudydata2 Chartinterpretedfromstudydata2 Chartinterpretedfromstudydata2

2006

RSSReduction

2009 2013

“ The costs saved in oR time and X-rays and the costs potentially avoided by preventing an RSS were estimated at $598,558 annually*. The benefits of using RF technology thus far outweigh its cost 4.”

patient safetyBetween2006-2012,thefivefacilitiesusingtheSituate™Technologyexperienceda93%reductioninretainedsurgicalsponges4.

EfficiencyFacilitiesusingSituate™TechnologyexperiencedadecreaseinORtimeby16 minutesacase,leadingtoanaveragepotentialsavingofover$1,000perprocedure4.

Cost-effectivenessCost savings: TotalannualcostsavingsinX-rayusageandORtimewasestimatedat$157,0244.Cost avoidance:Thepotentialreadmission/reimbursementandlegalcostsavoidedbypreventinganRSSthroughRFdetectionareanestimated$441,5344.

0%

50%

100%

-93%RSSReduction

Situate™Users NonUsers

$598,558*

below $191,352

CostSavings&PotentialCost

Avoidance

AdoptionofSituate™Technology

Situate™ Technology is proven to provide cost savings and cost avoidance at a rate of 3.13 times implementation costs2

2010

2011

2012

ORminutespercase

162143

162147

162146

1.Cima,R.etal.IncidenceandCharacteristicsofPotentialandActualRetainedForeignObjectEventsinSurgicalPatients.AmCollSurg.Vol.207,No.1,July2008.p80-87.

2.Greenberg,C.etal.Bar-codingSurgicalSpongestoImproveSafety.AnnalsofSurgery.Vol.247,No.4,April2008.p612-616.

3.Sloane,T.ModalityComparisonStudy:Trackingvs.Detection:AnEvaluationofContrastingTechnologicalApproachestoPreventingRetainedSurgicalSponges.PublishedbyStryker,2014.

4.Williams,T,etal.RetainedSurgicalSponges:FindingsfromIncidentReportsandaCost-BenefitAnalysisofRadiofrequencyTechnology.JAmCollSurg.Vol.219,No.3,Sept.2014.p354-364.

5.Steelman,V.Mohammad,A.AssessmentofRadiofrequencyDeviceSensitivityfortheDetectionofRetainedSurgicalSpongesinPatientswithMorbidObesity.ArchSurg.Vol147,No10.Oct2012.p955-960.

6.Dossett,LA.etal.Cost-effectivenessofroutineradiographsafteremergentopencavityoperations.Surgery,2008Aug;144(2):317-21.Epub2008Jun5.

*ThiscalculationisbasedonORchargerates(avg$62/min).

©2015Medtronic.Allrightsreserved.Medtronic,MedtroniclogoandFurther,TogetheraretrademarksofMedtronic.AllotherbrandsaretrademarksofaMedtroniccompany.10.15P150041