OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

Background: Hand hygiene is considered the simplest and most cost-effective method of infection prevention. Regular observation and feedback on hand hygiene compliance are key strategies for its enhancement. This study evaluated the effectiveness of hand hygiene surveillance, including direct observation and feedback, by comprehensively analyzing the reported hand hygiene compliance within the Korean National Healthcare-Associated Infections Surveillance System from 2019 to 2022. Methods: Participating medical institutions included general hospitals and hospitals with infection control departments that consented to participate. Hand hygiene surveillance was conducted using direct observation. Collected data, including healthcare workers, clinical areas, hand hygiene moments, and hand hygiene compliance, were recorded to calculate hand hygiene compliance rates. Additionally, the volume of alcohol-based hand sanitizers used per patient per day was investigated as an indirect indicator of hand hygiene compliance. The study was conducted from July 2019 to December 2022. Results: Hand hygiene compliance increased from 87.2% in Q3 2019 to 89.9% in 2022. Nurses and medical technologists showed the highest compliance rates, whereas doctors showed the lowest compliance rates. Intensive care units excelled in compliance, whereas emergency de partments lagged. Compliance was highest after patient contact and lowest when the patient’s surroundings were touched. Larger hospitals consumed more alcohol-based hand sanitizers than smaller hospitals did. Conclusion This study confirmed an improvement in hand hygiene compliance through sustained surveillance, indicating its contribution not only to preventing infection transfer within healthcare facilities but also to fostering a culture of hand hygiene in the country.

Background: A chronic disease management program including patient education, recall and remind service, and reduction of out-of-pocket payment was implemented in Korea through a chronic care model. This study aimed to assess the effect of a community-based intervention program for improving medication adherence of patients with diabetes mellitus in rural areas of Korea. Methods: We applied a non-equivalent control group design using Korean National Health Insurance Big Data. Hongcheon County has been continuously adopting this program since 2012 as an intervention region. Hoengseong County did not adopt such program. It was used as a control region. Subjects were a cohort of patients with diabetes mellitus aged more than 65 years but less than 85 years among residents for 11 years from 2010 to 2020. After 1:1 matching, there were 368 subjects in the intervention region and 368 in the control region. Indirect indicators were analyzed using the difference-in-difference regression according to Andersen’s medical use model. Results: The increasing percent point of diabetic patients who continuously received insurance benefits for more than 240 days from 2010 to 2014 and from 2010 to 2020 were 2.6%p and 2.7%p in the intervention region and 3.0%p and 3.9%p in the control region, respectively. The number of dispensations per prescription of diabetic patient in the intervention region increased by approximately 4.61% by month compared to that in the control region. Conclusion The intervention program encouraged older people with diabetes mellitus to receive continuous care for overcoming the rule of halves in the community. More research is needed to determine whether further improvement in the continuity of comprehensive care can prevent the progression of cardiovascular diseases.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

At the end of 2019, the cause of pneumonia outbreaks in Wuhan, China, was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. In February 2020, the World Health Organization named the disease cause by SARS-CoV-2 as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response to the pandemic, the Korean Cancer Association formed the COVID-19 task force to develop practice guidelines. This special article introduces the clinical practice guidelines for cancer patients which will help oncologists best manage cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Breast reconstruction using an extended latissimus dorsi (eLD) flap can supplement more volume than reconstruction using various local flaps after partial mastectomy, and it is a valuable surgical method since the reconstruction area is not limited. However, when performing reconstruction, the surgeon should consider latissimus dorsi (LD) volume reduction due to postoperative chemotherapy (POCTx) and postoperative radiotherapy (PORTx). To evaluate the effect of POCTx and PORTx on LD volume reduction, the effects of each therapy—both separately and jointly—need to be demonstrated. The present study quantified LD volume reduction in patients who underwent POCTx and PORTx after receiving breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with an eLD flap. Methods: This study included 48 patients who received immediate breast reconstruction using an eLD flap from January 2013 to March 2017, had chest computed tomography (CT) 7–10 days after surgery and 10–14 months after radiotherapy completion, and were observed for more than 3 years postoperatively. One surgeon performed the breast reconstruction procedures, and measurements of breast volume were obtained from axial CT views, using a picture archiving and communication system. A P-value <0.05 was the threshold for statistical significance. Results: The average volume reduction of LD at 10–14 months after completing POCTx and PORTx was 64.5% (range, 42.8%–81.4%) in comparison to the volume measured 7–10 days after surgery. This change was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusions Based on the findings of this study, when harvesting an eLD flap, surgeons should anticipate an average LD volume reduction of 64.5% if chemotherapy and radiotherapy are scheduled after BCS with an eLD flap.