Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Objective: To establish local diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for pediatric neck CT based on age, weight, and water-equivalent diameter (WED) across multiple university hospitals in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric neck CT examinations from nine university hospitals, involving patients aged 0–18 years. Data were categorized by age, weight, and WED, and radiation dose metrics, including volume CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose length product, were recorded. Data retrieval and analysis were conducted using a commercially available dose-management system (Radimetrics, Bayer Healthcare). Local DRLs were established following the International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines, using the 75th percentile as the reference value. Results: A total of 1159 CT examinations were analyzed, including 169 scans from Institution 1, 132 from Institution 2, 126 from Institution 3, 129 from Institution 4, 128 from Institution 5, 105 from Institution 6, 162 from Institution 7, 127 from Institution 8, and 81 from Institution 9. Radiation dose metrics increased with age, weight, and WED, showing significant variability both within and across institutions. For patients weighing less than 10 kg, the DRL for CTDIvol was 5.2 mGy. In the 10–19 kg group, the DRL was 5.8 mGy; in the 20–39 kg group, 7.6 mGy; in the 40–59 kg group, 11.0 mGy; and for patients weighing 60 kg or more, 16.2 mGy. DRLs for CTDIvol by age groups were as follows: 5.3 mGy for infants under 1 year, 5.7 mGy for children aged 1–4 years, 7.6 mGy for ages 5–9 years, 11.2 mGy for ages 10–14 years, and 15.6 mGy for patients 15 years or older. Conclusion Local DRLs for pediatric neck CT were established based on age, weight, and WED across nine university hospitals in South Korea.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the key factors in nursing workforce management for pandemic response in general hospitals and long-term care hospitals and to analyze the relative importance of these factors. Methods: A validity test was conducted with experts to select four categories and 30 key factors related to nursing workforce management for pandemic response. Surveys were collected from 25 nursing managers in general hospitals and 21 nursing managers in long-term care hospitals, and the relative importance of the key factors was analyzed using the analytic hierarchy process method. Results: Differences were found between the two groups in the relative importance of nursing workforce management for pandemic response. Specifically, the highest-ranking category was “workforce recruitment and redeployment” for general hospitals, but “workforce support and protection” for long-term care hospitals. The most important factor regarding nursing workforce management was the “nurse-to-patient ratio” for both general and long-term care hospitals. Conclusion General and long-term care hospitals need to establish nursing workforce management strategies to effectively respond to pandemics with appropriate consideration of the relative importance and prioritization of key factors based on hospital characteristics.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the key factors in nursing workforce management for pandemic response in general hospitals and long-term care hospitals and to analyze the relative importance of these factors. Methods: A validity test was conducted with experts to select four categories and 30 key factors related to nursing workforce management for pandemic response. Surveys were collected from 25 nursing managers in general hospitals and 21 nursing managers in long-term care hospitals, and the relative importance of the key factors was analyzed using the analytic hierarchy process method. Results: Differences were found between the two groups in the relative importance of nursing workforce management for pandemic response. Specifically, the highest-ranking category was “workforce recruitment and redeployment” for general hospitals, but “workforce support and protection” for long-term care hospitals. The most important factor regarding nursing workforce management was the “nurse-to-patient ratio” for both general and long-term care hospitals. Conclusion General and long-term care hospitals need to establish nursing workforce management strategies to effectively respond to pandemics with appropriate consideration of the relative importance and prioritization of key factors based on hospital characteristics.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.