Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to conduct a concept analysis of social intelligence in nurses so that applying social intelligence to the nursing field. Methods: In this study, we followed the hybrid model procedure, involving the following steps: First, in the theoretical stage, the attributes and definitions of the concept of social intelligence were determined through literature review. Second, the concepts’ reality was confirmed during fieldwork. In the final analysis stage, the results confirmed in the theoretical and fieldwork stages were compared and analyzed to confirm the properties and definition of the concept. Results: Nurses’ social intelligence consists of three dimensions: social cognitive nursing competency, human-centered social evolution, and skills for solving complex nursing situations. Nurses’ social intelligence is a professional nursing competency that flexibly coordinates complex nursing situations, developed through accumulating experiences of continuous reflection and relationship expansion based on receptive listening and social sensitivity in clinical interpersonal relationships. Conclusion Nurses’ social intelligence is widely used in clinical practice and is shown to have a significant direct and indirect impact on clinical nursing. To effectively apply social intelligence in the clinical context, individual and organizational efforts are required to share and transfer knowledge and capacity-building methods through collective intelligence and education.

Background: Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) account for a large proportion of healthcare-associated infections and have a significant impact on morbidity, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Adherence to the recommended infection prevention practices can effectively reduce the incidence of CAUTIs. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of CAUTIs and the efficacy of prevention programs across hospitals of various sizes. Methods: Intervention programs, including training, surveillance, and monitoring, were implemented. Data on the microorganisms responsible for CAUTIs, urinary catheter utilization ratio, rate of CAUTIs per 1,000 device days, and factors associated with the use of indwelling catheters were collected from 2017 to 2019. The incidence of CAUTIs and associated data were compared between university hospitals and small- and medium-sized hospitals. Results: Thirty-two hospitals participated in the study, including 21 university hospitals and 11 small- and medium-sized hospitals. The microorganisms responsible for CAUTIs and their resistance rates did not differ between the two groups. In the first quarter of 2018, the incidence rate was 2.05 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 1.44 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. After implementing interventions, the rate gradually decreased in the first quarter of 2019, with 1.18 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 0.79 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. However, by the end of the study, the infection rate increased to 1.74 infections/1,000 device-days in university hospitals and 1.80 infections/1,000 device-days in small- and medium-sized hospitals. Conclusion We implemented interventions to prevent CAUTIs and evaluated their outcomes. The incidence of these infections decreased in the initial phases of the intervention when adequate support and personnel were present. The rate of these infections may be reduced by implementing active interventions such as consistent monitoring and adherence to guidelines for preventing infections.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of an instrument devised for slit-lamp examination of donor corneas suspended in preservation medium. Methods: The study examined two donor corneas received at Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital in February 2023 and March 2023. The instrument has three main components: a plastic holder to hold the preservation medium bottle, a cube with a mirror for reflecting the slit beam, and a stand to attach the device to the slit-lamp. Using the instrument, the donor corneas were examined via slit-lamp: microscopy with the endothelium facing upward and downward. Specular microscopy and anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) were also performed on the preserved donor corneas. Results: Slit-lamp examination of donor corneas in preservation medium using the instrument showed overall corneal buttoning and optical sections of the donor cornea. Using specular reflection and retroillumination, the endothelial layer was partially visible. However, specular microscopy and anterior segment OCT could not examine the donor cornea in preservation medium using the instrument. Conclusions The devised instrument facilitates slit-lamp examination of donor corneas in preservation medium, enabling a qualitative assessment of donor corneas before corneal transplantation surgery.