OBJECTIVE: From November 30, 2016, the Korean Government carried the revised Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Act into effect. Mediation will start automatically without agreements of the defendant, when the outcome of the patient was death, coma more than a month or severe disability. Cerebral aneurysm has a definite risk of bad outcome, especially in the worst condition. Any surgical intervention to this lesion has its own high risk of complications. Recently, Seoul central district court decided 50% responsibility of the doctors who made a rupture of the aneurysm during coiling (2015Ga-Dan5243104). We reviewed judicial precedents related to cerebral aneurysms in lawsuit using a web search.METHODS: We searched judicial precedents at a web search of the Supreme Court, using the key words, "cerebral aneurysm".RESULTS: There were 15 precedents, six from the Supreme Court, seven from the High Court, and two from district courts. Seven precedents were related to the causation analysis, such as work-relationship. Five precedents were malpractice suits related bad results or complications. Remaining three precedents were related to the insurance payment. In five malpractice precedents, two precedents of the Supreme Court reversed former two precedents of the High Court.CONCLUSION: Judicial precedents on the cerebral aneurysm included not only malpractice suits, but also causation analysis or insurance payment. Attention to these subjects is needed. We also need education of the independent medical examination. To avoid medical disputes, shared decision making seems to be useful, especially in cases of high risk condition or procedures.
Aneurysm ; Coma ; Decision Making ; Dissent and Disputes ; Education ; Expert Testimony ; Humans ; Insurance ; Intracranial Aneurysm ; Malpractice ; Negotiating ; Rupture ; Seoul

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to explore the process and operation of a cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) after the reimbursement decision in Korea, and to identify ways to overcome the major barriers to effective and sustainable MDTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approximately 1,000 cancer specialists, including medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists in general hospitals in Koreawere invited to complete the survey. The questionnaire covered the following topics: organizational structure of MDTs, candidates for consulting, the clinical decision-making initiative, and responsibility for dealing with legal disputes. RESULTS: We collected a total of 179 responses (18%) from physicians at institutions where an MDT approach was active. A surgical oncologist (91%), internist (90%),radiologist (89%),radiation oncologist (86%), pathologist (71%), and trainees (20%) regularly participated in MDT operations. Approximately 55% of respondents stated that MDTs met regularly. In cases of a split opinion, the physician in charge (69%) or chairperson (17%) made the final decision, and most (86%) stated they followed the final decision. About 15% and 32% of respondents were “very satisfied” and “satisfied,” respectively, with the current MDT's operations. Among 38 institutional representatives, 34% responded that the MDT operation became more active and 18% stated an MDT was newly implemented after the reimbursement decision. CONCLUSION: The reimbursement decision invigorated MDT operations in almost half of eligible hospitals. Dissatisfaction regarding current MDTs was over 50%, and the high discordance rates regarding risk sharing suggest that it is necessary to revise the current system of MDTs.
Clinical Decision-Making ; Dissent and Disputes ; Hospitals, General ; Korea* ; Specialization ; Surveys and Questionnaires

PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand the mechanisms of decision regret and stress of family surrogates' end-of-life decision making using an exploratory path model. In particular, the research identified the direct effects of perceptions of uncertainty and effective decisions on decision regret and stress, and examined the indirect effects of being informed, having clear values, and being supported for decision regret and the stress of end-of-life decision making through the mediating variables of perceptions of uncertainty and effective decisions. METHODS: Data were collected from 102 family surrogates who had participated in end-of-life decision making for patients with terminal cancer in a tertiary hospital. RESULTS: Perception of effective decisions was a significant direct predictor of decision regret, and uncertainty was a significant predictor of stress among the participants. Being informed, having clear values, and being supported had a significant indirect influence on decision regret through the perception of effective decisions among family surrogates. However, only having clear values had a significant indirect influence on stress through the perception of uncertainty. The model explained 63.0% of decision regret and 20.0% of stress among the participants and showed a good fit with the data, χ2=12.40 (df=8, p=.134), TLI=.97, and RMSEA=.07. CONCLUSION: Nurses can support family surrogates in end-oflife decision-making processes to decrease their decision regret by providing information about end-of-life care choices, clarifying personal values, and supporting the decision-making process, and to relieve their stress by facilitating the clarification of personal values.
Decision Making ; Humans ; Negotiating ; Stress, Psychological* ; Terminal Care ; Tertiary Care Centers ; Uncertainty

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the experiences of career decision making by Korean nursing students. METHODS: The participants were 18 nursing students from one nursing college. Data were collected through in-depth individual interviews, and the main question was, “Could you describe your experience of making a career decision?” Data from the field and transcribed notes were analyzed using Strauss and Corbin's grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Core category of nursing students' experiences in making career decisions was ‘trying to find the way of being a nurse’. Action/interaction strategies were ‘becoming one's own self’, ‘actively exploring the way of being a nurse’, and ‘experiencing one’s own achievement as a future nurse’. Consequences were ‘deciding on the career on one’s own’ and ‘career indecision on one's own’. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that nursing students tried to know themselves, explore careers and experience their achievements, and that their efforts were influenced by real situations and support systems. Therefore, nurse educators should develop systems and programs to help students in nursing make career decisions.
Career Choice ; Decision Making ; Grounded Theory ; Humans ; Nursing* ; Qualitative Research ; Students, Nursing*

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate factors influencing career preparation behavior among male nursing students in South Korea. METHODS: Data were collected from May 25 to June 17, 2018 and a total of 158 male nursing students participated in this study. Career decision making self-efficacy, military duty planning, and career preparation behavior were measured using a structured questionnaire. Collected data were analyzed with SPSS 25.0 for windows. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in career preparation behavior of participants according to entrance motivation and desired career after graduation. There were statistically significant correlations between career decision making self-efficacy and career preparation behavior (r=.65, p < .001), and between military duty planning and career preparation behavior (r=.45, p < .001). The influential factors for career preparation behavior were career decision making self-efficacy (β=.64, p < .001), and military duty planning (β=.42, p < .001). These factors accounted for 42% of the variance in career preparation behavior. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that to improve career preparation behavior for male nursing students, it is necessary to enhance career decision making self-efficacy and military duty planning.
Career Choice ; Decision Making ; Humans ; Korea ; Male ; Military Personnel ; Motivation ; Nursing ; Students, Nursing

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of TLICS classification in the thoracolumbar injuries, which had been evaluated in our hospital. It was compared with that of the older, McAfee classification and discussed for clinical validation. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW: Among the numerous literatures regarding the thoracolumbar injury, there is no consensus on the most useful classification, and there is nothing comparing the McAfee classification with the TLICS classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among the 230 patients that were treated with conservative care or operation from January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2010 in our hospital, 185 patients with initial CT and MRI images were assessed. Five orthopedic surgeons reviewed histories, plain film, CT and MRI of the 185 thoracolumbar injury cases, respectively. Each case was classified and scored according to the McAfee classification and the TLICS classification. The case assessment was recorded and the orthopedic surgeons repeated the assessment 1 month later. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were assessed by statistical analysis. The actual management of each case was compared with the treatment recommended by TLICS classification to calculate the validity of the indexes. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver reliability in TLICS were higher than those in the McAfee classification. Agreement of the TLICS classification for treatment recommendation was 81.7%, comparing with the actual management of previous McAfee classification. Validity indexes were satisfactory in therapeutic decision making, especially specificity. CONCLUSIONS: TLICS classification has a relative high K-value, when compared with that of the McAfee classification for intraobserver and interobserver reliability. Through clinical studies, including prospective observational analysis, TLICS classification can be applied and adjusted more adequately.
Consensus ; Decision Making ; Humans ; Orthopedics ; Retrospective Studies ; Spinal Injuries

PURPOSE:In many countries, patients and dialysis unit physicians attempt to address issues regarding withholding and withdrawing dialysis through advance directives and clinical guidelines for dialysis utilization. However, there are only a few reports of withholding and withdrawing dialysis in Korea. This study was developed to investigate the attitudes of dialysis unit physicians regarding withholding and withdrawing dialysis in Korea. METHODS:A questionnaire survey was conducted among 45 dialysis unit physicians from January, 2006 to January, 2008. Physicians were asked about their decision making process to withhold and withdraw dialysis, and their opinions regarding the necessities of advance directives and guidelines for withholding and withdrawing dialysis. RESULTS:Analysis of surveys revealed that physicians agreed more about whether to withhold and withdraw dialysis in vegetative patients compared to patients with dementia ( p<0.001, p<0.001). There were more agreements about whether to withhold dialysis than whether to withdraw dialysis in patients with unimpaired cognition ( p<0.037). However, there were no differences in agreements between withholding and withdrawing dialysis in patients with severe neurological impairments. There appeared to be a general consensus regarding the need for guidelines addressing withholding and withdrawing dialysis (84.4%). However, opinions supporting the necessity for advance directives were not strongly favored (33.3%). CONCLUSION:Conflicting opinions are present among dialysis unit physicians regarding whether to withhold and withdraw dialysis according to a patient's neurological impairments. However, most dialysis unit physicians were of one accord regarding the need of guidelines for withholding and withdrawing dialysis.
Advance Directives ; Cognition ; Consensus ; Decision Making ; Dementia ; Dialysis ; Humans ; Korea

PURPOSE:In many countries, patients and dialysis unit physicians attempt to address issues regarding withholding and withdrawing dialysis through advance directives and clinical guidelines for dialysis utilization. However, there are only a few reports of withholding and withdrawing dialysis in Korea. This study was developed to investigate the attitudes of dialysis unit physicians regarding withholding and withdrawing dialysis in Korea. METHODS:A questionnaire survey was conducted among 45 dialysis unit physicians from January, 2006 to January, 2008. Physicians were asked about their decision making process to withhold and withdraw dialysis, and their opinions regarding the necessities of advance directives and guidelines for withholding and withdrawing dialysis. RESULTS:Analysis of surveys revealed that physicians agreed more about whether to withhold and withdraw dialysis in vegetative patients compared to patients with dementia ( p<0.001, p<0.001). There were more agreements about whether to withhold dialysis than whether to withdraw dialysis in patients with unimpaired cognition ( p<0.037). However, there were no differences in agreements between withholding and withdrawing dialysis in patients with severe neurological impairments. There appeared to be a general consensus regarding the need for guidelines addressing withholding and withdrawing dialysis (84.4%). However, opinions supporting the necessity for advance directives were not strongly favored (33.3%). CONCLUSION:Conflicting opinions are present among dialysis unit physicians regarding whether to withhold and withdraw dialysis according to a patient's neurological impairments. However, most dialysis unit physicians were of one accord regarding the need of guidelines for withholding and withdrawing dialysis.
Advance Directives ; Cognition ; Consensus ; Decision Making ; Dementia ; Dialysis ; Humans ; Korea

The standardization committee of the Korean Society for Laboratory Hematology sought to establish standardized testing guidelines for the diagnosis of hematologic malignancies. The guidelines were developed on the basis of survey results and international guidelines, including the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines and European LeukemiaNet recommendations. The committee expects that the diagnostic guidelines presented here will enhance diagnostic test standardization and clinical decision making and that the novel developments due to new molecular technologies will be integrated into the diagnostic algorithms through ongoing consensus initiatives.
Consensus ; Decision Making ; Diagnosis* ; Diagnostic Tests, Routine ; Hematologic Neoplasms* ; Hematology

BACKGROUND: Although a growing number of guidelines and clinical researches are available for immunosuppressive treatment of post-transplantation, there is no clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients in Korea. Selection of a researchable question is the most important step in conducting qualified guideline development. Thus, we aimed to formulate key questions for Korean guideline to aid clinical decision-making for immunosuppressive treatment. METHODS: Based on previous published guidelines review, a first survey was constructed with 29 questions in the range of immunosuppressive treatments. The experts were asked to rate the clinical importance of the question using a 5-point Likert scale. The questions reached 60% or more from the first survey and additional new questions were included in the second survey. In analyzing the responses to items rated on the 9-point scale, consensus agreement on each question was defined as 75% or more of experts rating 7 to 9. RESULTS: In the first survey, 50 experts were included. Among the 29 questions, 27 were derived to get 60% or more importance and 3 new questions were additionally identified. Through the second survey, 9 questions were selected that experts reached consensus on 75% and over of the options. Finally, we developed key questions using PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome) methodology. CONCLUSION: The experts reached a high level of consensus on many of key questions in the survey. Final key questions provide direction for developing clinical practice guideline in the immunosuppressive treatment of transplantation.
Clinical Decision-Making ; Consensus ; Kidney Transplantation ; Kidney ; Korea ; Transplant Recipients