true

BD Phoenix™ Automated Identification and Susceptibility

194.png
Overview

The BD Phoenix™ automated identification and susceptibility testing system provides rapid, accurate and reliable detection of known and emerging antimicrobial resistance. It also enables workflow efficiency by utilizing automated nephelometry, which results in a standardized isolate inoculum and a reduction in potential technologist error. Additionally, state-of-the-art data management monitors, analyzes and communicates actionable results directly to laboratories and clinicians.

Related Products

  • phoenix-ap-instrument_R_DS_201198935.jpg

    BD Phoenix AP automated inoculum preparation instrument can be combined with the BD Phoenix M50 for automated inoculum standardization.

  • phoenix-instrumentation-m50-101017-001-160px.jpg

    The BD Phoenix M50 instrument provides clinicians with accurate and timely identification and susceptibility results to help guide their therapy and patient management decisions.

  • identification-mic-panels_RC_DS_IDS_0916-0021.jpg

    BD Phoenix panels are available in identification only, susceptibility only, and combination panels.

  • broth-and-reagents_RC_DS_IDS_0916-0006.jpg

    BD offers broths and reagents for the BD Phoenix™ automated identification and susceptibility testing system.

  • phoenix-nephelometer_RC_DS_IDS_0916-0012.jpg

    The BD Phoenix nephelometer is a portable device that measures the turbidity of microbial suspensions used in specimen preparation.

  • phoenix-system-accessories_RC_DS_IDS_0916-0008.jpg

    BD provides various accessories for the BD Phoenix automated identification and susceptibility testing system.

Contact Us 

References
  1. Burns J. Combining lean with lab automation to get impressive results. Dark Rep. 2015;22(10):10-15.
  2. Page N. Transforming a Canadian microbiology laboratory: laboratory automation and lean processes reduce errors, improve standardization and result quality while improving productivity. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(11):718-740.
  3. Croxatto A et al. Comparison of inoculation with the InoqulA and WASP automated systems with manual inoculation. J Clin Microbiol. 2016;53(7):2298-2307.