Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Background: Pig red blood cells (RBCs) are rapidly eliminated when transfused into nonhuman primates (NHPs) because of immune reactions involving antibody binding and complement activation. We assessed the relationship between post-transfusion hemolysis and complement activation. Methods: RBCs for transfusion were prepared from wild-type (WT) and genetically modified pigs and NHPs. After the withdrawal of 25% of the blood volume, NHPs received transfusions of WT (N = 4), triple knockout (TKO, N = 8), and TKO pig RBCs expressing human CD55 and CD39 (TKO/hCD55.hCD39, N = 4). Additional groups received repeated xenotransfusions (ReXTf, N = 3), NHP RBC transfusions (N = 3), or a saline infusion (N = 4).Blood samples were collected at multiple time points to measure Hb and complement fragment (C3a, C4a, and factor Bb) levels and agglutination titers. Results: Hb levels were restored by transfusions but not by saline infusion. The degree of complement activation varied with the type of transfused RBCs, with significant increases in C3a and factor Bb levels immediately after xenotransfusions but not allotransfusions.These increases were particularly notable in ReXTf and negatively correlated with Hb levels on post-transfusion day 1 (ρ = –0.547 and –0.556; P = 0.0187 and 0.0165, respectively).In TKO/hCD55.hCD39 pig RBC transfusions, C3a and factor Bb peak levels were delayed until post-transfusion day 3, unlike in TKO pig RBC transfusions. Conclusions Post-transfusion complement activation varies depending on prior sensitization and genetic modifications in pig RBCs. Monitoring complement activation can provide insight into the survival and compatibility of transfused RBCs in NHPs.

Rehabilitation medicine in Korea has improved significantly; however, the rehabilitation medical delivery system still lacks well-established continuity and comprehensiveness. Since 2000, Japan has implemented a convalescent rehabilitation ward system, with continuous improvements in policies and criteria based on clinical needs. This study compared the rehabilitation systems of Korea and Japan, focusing on institutional standards and the scope of target patients in order to explore directions for enhancing the Korean system.Current Concepts: Japan applies a multi-tiered reporting system for rehabilitation wards, categorizing wards and adjusting reimbursements based on performance indicators such as functional improvement rates, discharge-tohome rates, and rehabilitation effectiveness indices. Additionally, Japan’s policies encompass a broad range of target diseases and flexible admission criteria, improving accessibility. In Korea, the scope of target diseases is relatively narrow, limiting opportunities for patients to receive appropriate rehabilitation treatment.Discussion and Conclusion: Korea could benefit from adopting a multitiered system and performance-based reimbursement structure, as seen in Japan’s model. Expanding the range of eligible conditions and reviewing certification requirements can enhance the accessibility and quality of rehabilitation services. These changes are expected to foster an environment in which patients can receive timely and comprehensive rehabilitation care, thereby facilitating physical recovery and reintegration into society.

Following the government’s unilateral announcement to increase medical school quotas, serious concerns are rising over the development of medical education and future healthcare in South Korea. Medical experts are disappointed by the lack of transparent decision-making. Unlike major developed countries that establish specialized bodies with expert involvement to set physician workforce policies, the Korean government plans to create a “human resource supply and demand estimation adjustment system” without sufficient consultation with medical professionals. This study analyzes Japan’s policy process regarding medical school quotas to derive implications for establishing governance for physician workforce supply and demand in Korea.Current Concepts: In Japan, the Physician Supply and Demand Subcommittee, mostly comprising medical experts, conducts in-depth discussions on adjusting physician supply and addressing regional disparities. Their discussions are transparent and publicly disclosed, influencing policy decisions such as gradual adjustments to quotas and measures to improve physician distribution.Discussion and Conclusion: Japan’s approach demonstrates the importance of involving medical experts in policymaking and ensuring transparency. The Japanese government collaborates with medical professionals to accurately project physician supply and demand, and adjusts medical school quotas gradually. In contrast, Korea’s abrupt plan to increase quotas without thorough expert consultation may lead to unintended consequences. It is imperative for the Korean government to form consultative bodies centered around medical experts to engage in in-depth discussions, ensuring that policies are realistic and effectively addressing challenges such as population decline and regional healthcare disparities.

Rehabilitation medicine in Korea has improved significantly; however, the rehabilitation medical delivery system still lacks well-established continuity and comprehensiveness. Since 2000, Japan has implemented a convalescent rehabilitation ward system, with continuous improvements in policies and criteria based on clinical needs. This study compared the rehabilitation systems of Korea and Japan, focusing on institutional standards and the scope of target patients in order to explore directions for enhancing the Korean system.Current Concepts: Japan applies a multi-tiered reporting system for rehabilitation wards, categorizing wards and adjusting reimbursements based on performance indicators such as functional improvement rates, discharge-tohome rates, and rehabilitation effectiveness indices. Additionally, Japan’s policies encompass a broad range of target diseases and flexible admission criteria, improving accessibility. In Korea, the scope of target diseases is relatively narrow, limiting opportunities for patients to receive appropriate rehabilitation treatment.Discussion and Conclusion: Korea could benefit from adopting a multitiered system and performance-based reimbursement structure, as seen in Japan’s model. Expanding the range of eligible conditions and reviewing certification requirements can enhance the accessibility and quality of rehabilitation services. These changes are expected to foster an environment in which patients can receive timely and comprehensive rehabilitation care, thereby facilitating physical recovery and reintegration into society.

Following the government’s unilateral announcement to increase medical school quotas, serious concerns are rising over the development of medical education and future healthcare in South Korea. Medical experts are disappointed by the lack of transparent decision-making. Unlike major developed countries that establish specialized bodies with expert involvement to set physician workforce policies, the Korean government plans to create a “human resource supply and demand estimation adjustment system” without sufficient consultation with medical professionals. This study analyzes Japan’s policy process regarding medical school quotas to derive implications for establishing governance for physician workforce supply and demand in Korea.Current Concepts: In Japan, the Physician Supply and Demand Subcommittee, mostly comprising medical experts, conducts in-depth discussions on adjusting physician supply and addressing regional disparities. Their discussions are transparent and publicly disclosed, influencing policy decisions such as gradual adjustments to quotas and measures to improve physician distribution.Discussion and Conclusion: Japan’s approach demonstrates the importance of involving medical experts in policymaking and ensuring transparency. The Japanese government collaborates with medical professionals to accurately project physician supply and demand, and adjusts medical school quotas gradually. In contrast, Korea’s abrupt plan to increase quotas without thorough expert consultation may lead to unintended consequences. It is imperative for the Korean government to form consultative bodies centered around medical experts to engage in in-depth discussions, ensuring that policies are realistic and effectively addressing challenges such as population decline and regional healthcare disparities.

Rehabilitation medicine in Korea has improved significantly; however, the rehabilitation medical delivery system still lacks well-established continuity and comprehensiveness. Since 2000, Japan has implemented a convalescent rehabilitation ward system, with continuous improvements in policies and criteria based on clinical needs. This study compared the rehabilitation systems of Korea and Japan, focusing on institutional standards and the scope of target patients in order to explore directions for enhancing the Korean system.Current Concepts: Japan applies a multi-tiered reporting system for rehabilitation wards, categorizing wards and adjusting reimbursements based on performance indicators such as functional improvement rates, discharge-tohome rates, and rehabilitation effectiveness indices. Additionally, Japan’s policies encompass a broad range of target diseases and flexible admission criteria, improving accessibility. In Korea, the scope of target diseases is relatively narrow, limiting opportunities for patients to receive appropriate rehabilitation treatment.Discussion and Conclusion: Korea could benefit from adopting a multitiered system and performance-based reimbursement structure, as seen in Japan’s model. Expanding the range of eligible conditions and reviewing certification requirements can enhance the accessibility and quality of rehabilitation services. These changes are expected to foster an environment in which patients can receive timely and comprehensive rehabilitation care, thereby facilitating physical recovery and reintegration into society.