Purpose: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of the Trauma-nursing Education and Skill Support (TESS) program based on the ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation model). The program was designed to enhance trauma nurses’ clinical competencies, including trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability, through the integration of theoretical education and simulation-based practice. Methods: A quasi-experimental study using a non-equivalent control group pretest–posttest design was conducted. Participants included 108 trauma nurses from regional trauma centers, military trauma centers, and emergency care facilities, who were assigned to an experimental group (n=52) or a control group (n=56). The TESS program consisted of a 2-day, 14-hour blended-learning course that included eight lecture sessions and four simulation-based practice stations. Data were collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at 6 months using validated instruments measuring trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used for data analysis. Results: The experimental group demonstrated significant improvements in trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability compared with baseline (all p<.001). These improvements were sustained at 6 months, although trauma-related knowledge scores showed a slight decline compared with immediate posttest levels. Between-group analyses confirmed significant group-by-time interaction effects for all outcomes: trauma-related knowledge (η2=0.12, p<.001), self-efficacy (η2=0.09, p=.002), and problem-solving ability (η2=0.08, p=.003). Conclusion The TESS program effectively enhanced trauma nurses’ trauma-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and problem-solving ability, with effects sustained for up to 6 months. Incorporating blended learning and simulation-based training into standardized trauma nursing education may strengthen clinical competencies and ultimately contribute to improved patient outcomes.

Background and Objectives: Clinical characteristics and outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) vary by phenotype. We assessed phenotype-specific features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a nationwide Korean cohort. Methods: The Korean Heart Failure III registry prospectively enrolled 7,351 AHF admissions at 47 hospitals. Among 6,777 patients with available left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), phenotypes were defined as heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF, ≤40%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF,41–49%), or preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥50%). The primary endpoint was a 12-month composite of all-cause death or heart transplantation, evaluated from index admission and, among hospital survivors, from discharge. We used inverse probability weighting (multinomial generalized boosted models with stabilized, trimmed weights) and weighted Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Phenotype distribution was 58.9% HFrEF, 13.6% HFmrEF, and 27.5% HFpEF. Crude 12-month composite rates from index admission were 13.4% (HFrEF), 12.7% (HFmrEF), and 16.8% (HFpEF). After weighting, from index admission, HFmrEF (HR, 0.892; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.731–1.088) and HFpEF (HR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.939–1.291) did not differ from HFrEF; from discharge, HFpEF had modestly higher risk (HR, 1.207; 95% CI, 1.008–1.445) whereas HFmrEF did not (HR, 1.039; 95% CI, 0.844–1.279). Hyponatremia and chronic kidney disease were consistent adverse markers, while angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin II receptor blocker use at discharge was protective. Conclusions Across the EF spectrum, phenotypes showed distinct profiles and risk. Postdischarge risk was modestly higher in HFpEF, supporting phenotype-tailored care and systematic discharge optimization in Korean patients with AHF.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: With growing elderly populations, management of patients with acute stroke is increasingly important. In South Korea, the Acute Stroke Quality Assessment Program (ASQAP) has contributed to improving the quality of stroke care and practice behavior in healthcare institutions. While the mortality of hemorrhagic stroke remains high, there are only a few assessment indices associated with hemorrhagic stroke. Considering the need to develop assessment indices to improve the actual quality of care in the field of acute stroke treatment, this study aims to investigate the current status of human resources and practices related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke through a nationwide survey. Methods: For the healthcare institutions included in the Ninth ASQAP of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), data from January 2022 to December 2022 were collected through a survey on the current status and practice of healthcare providers related to the treatment of patients with acute stroke. The questionnaire consisted of 19 items, including six items on healthcare providers involved in stroke care and 10 items on the care of patients with acute stroke. Results: In the treatment of patients with hemorrhagic stroke among patients with acute stroke, neurosurgeons were the most common providers. The contribution of neurosurgeons in the treatment of ischemic stroke has also been found to be equivalent to that of neurologists. However, a number of institutions were found to be devoid of healthcare providers who perform definitive treatments, such as intra-arterial thrombectomy for patients with ischemic stroke or cerebral aneurysm clipping for subarachnoid hemorrhage. The intensity of the workload of healthcare providers involved in the care of patients with acute stroke, especially those involved in definitive treatment, was also found to be quite high. Conclusion Currently, there are almost no assessment indices specific to hemorrhagic stroke in the ASQAP for acute stroke. Furthermore, it does not reflect the reality of the healthcare providers and practices that provide definitive treatment for acute stroke. The findings of this study suggest the need for the development of appropriate assessment indices that reflect the realities of acute stroke care.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

This study aimed to investigate changes in candidemia incidence, species distribution, antifungal susceptibility, initial antifungal use, and mortality trends in Korea before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A retrospective analysis was conducted on candidemia cases from two tertiary care hospitals in Korea between 2017 and 2022. Data were compared between the pre-pandemic (2017-2019) and pandemic (2020-2022) periods. Statistical methods included incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and multivariate Cox regression to assess 30-day mortality risk factors. A total of 470 candidemia cases were identified, with 48.7% occurring pre-pandemic and 51.3% during the pandemic. While the overall incidence of candidemia remained similar across the two periods (IRR 1.15;p=0.13), the incidence in intensive care units (ICUs) significantly increased during the pandemic (IRR 1.50; p<0.01). The distribution of Candida species did not differ significantly between the two periods. Fluconazole non-susceptibility in C. albicans markedly decreased (10.0% vs. 0.9%, p<0.01), whereas C. glabrata exhibited a significant rise in caspofungin non-susceptibility during the pandemic (0% vs. 22.4%, p<0.01).Echinocandin use increased (21.8% vs. 34.4%; p<0.01), while fluconazole use declined (48.0% vs. 32.8%; p<0.01). Although the 30-day mortality rate was higher during the pandemic (60.2% vs. 57.2%), the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.57).The findings highlight the need for region-specific surveillance and tailored management strategies to improve candidemia outcomes, especially during healthcare disruptions like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.