Objective To compare the consistency and accuracy between rapid direct detection method (rapid method)and traditional detection method (traditional method) for bacterial identification and drug sensitivity test of positive blood culture specimens. Methods The bloodstream infection specimens of the outpatients, emergency patients and inpatients of the Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2019 to 2020 were collected and placed in a blood culture apparatus. After the blood culture alarm, positive blood culture specimens were collected. At the same time, the rapid method and the traditional method were used for culture. After culture, bacteria identification and drug susceptibility test were conducted respectively, and the consistency of bacteria identification and drug susceptibility test between the two methods was recorded and compared. Results Among the 149 positive blood specimens from patients with bloodstream infection, 79 strains of Gram-positive cocci and 70 strains of Gram-negative bacilli were identified by traditional method; 75 strains of Gram-positive cocci and 67 strains of Gram-negative bacilli were identified by the rapid method. Compared with the traditional method, the overall coincidence rate of the rapid method in identify bacteria was 95.3%(142/149), among which the coincidence rate of Gram-positive cocci was 94.9%(75/79), and that of Gram-negative bacilli was 95.7%(67/70). In the traditional method, 76 strains (96.2%) of Gram-positive cocci and 66 strains (94.3%) of Gram-negative bacteria can effectively identify their species; 3 strains (3.8%) of Gram-positive cocci and 4 strains (5.7%) of Gram-negative bacilli could effectively identify their genera. In the rapid method, 52 strains (69.3%) of Gram-positive cocci and 63 strains (94.0%) of Gram-negative bacilli could effectively identify their species, 20 strains (26.7%) of Gram-positive cocci and 3 strains (4.5%) of Gram-negative bacilli could effectively identify their genera. According to the criteria of drug sensitivity test results, the coincidence rates between the rapid method and the traditional method for drug sensitivity test of Gram-positive cocci and Gram-negative bacilli were more than or equal to 90.0%, the general error rates were less than 10.0%, the serious error rates were less than 3.0%except compound sulfamethoxazole, and the extremely serious error rates were less than 1.5%. Conclusion The rapid method can effectively shorten the time of identification and drug sensitivity test, and the identification results are accurate. It is helpful for clinicians to make a clear diagnosis and adjust the treatment plan in time, quickly shift from empirical use of broad-spectrum antibiotics to targeted treatment, and provide more effective treatment plan for patients.