Background/Aims: This study is the first to analyze telemedicine pilot project experiences from doctors, pharmacists, and patients with different roles to support sustainable commercialization. Methods: An online survey targeted individuals (patients, doctors, and pharmacists) who participated in the telemedicine pilot project at least once between June 1, 2023, and July 17, 2024. The survey assessed satisfaction and usage conditions. The online survey conducted between May 2024 and July 2024 included 1,500 patients, 300 doctors, and 100 pharmacists. Results: Doctors, pharmacists, and patients all expressed their intention to participate actively in telemedicine in the future; however, pharmacists showed lower participation rates than doctors (84.7% vs. 67.0% vs. 91.7%, p < 0.001). The most common reason among doctors was “increasing demands from patients” (44.3%), while for pharmacists, it was “easy management of patients with chronic diseases” (67.0%). This showed a statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.001). Among patients, 65.0% cited “lack of time and convenience.” Notably, both doctors and patients agreed that telemedicine requires more time than current practices, although their perceptions differed significantly (all p < 0.001). Additionally, 24.0% of patients who used telemedicine for "hair loss/beauty" purposes reported treatment times of “≤ 3 minutes” shorter than for other purposes. Regarding telemedicine platforms, 75.0% of doctors and 84.0% of pharmacists reported no prior experience using them. Conclusions Appropriate telemedicine systems require collaboration among doctors, pharmacists, and patients. While most groups expressed positive attitudes and future intentions, significant gaps in experience and understanding must be addressed to ensure successful implementation.

Educational evaluation involves data collection and the analysis of various education-related factors to make decisions that improve educational quality. Systematic educational evaluation is essential for enhancing the quality of education. This study reports a case of student-conducted process evaluation of a medical school’s student support system and the procedure for devising improvement plans. Sixteen Inje University College of Medicine students participated in the Education Evaluation Committee (IUCM-EEC) to understand the educational improvement process as learners and actively achieve improvement. The Quality Improvement Committee of the Inje University College of Medicine (IUCM-QIC) decided to reform its student support system based on a previous educational evaluation in 2019. The evaluation of the student support system was conducted for 10 months in 2021 by the student subcommittee, under the guidance of the IUCM-EEC. The CIPP (context-input-process-product) evaluation model was used for a systematic evaluation. Accordingly, the subcommittee developed evaluation criteria and indicators, and analyzed relevant data collected from surveys and the previous literature. For further recommendations and revision ideas, the student subcommittee members interviewed faculty members from six other medical schools and also conducted a focus group interview with the dean and vice deans of IUCM. Finally, the student subcommittee submitted a report to the IUCM-QIC. Communication with various stakeholders is essential for a successful evaluation process. In this case, students, as key stakeholders in education, evaluated the student support system. Their active participation helped improve their understanding of the evaluation process.

To establish an appropriate policy for robotic surgery in Korea, the National Evidence-based Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Society of Health Policy and Administration held a round-table conference (RTC) to gather opinions through a comprehensive discussion of scientific information in gastric cancer. The NECA RTC is a public discussion forum wherein experts from diverse fields and members of the lay public conduct in-depth discussions on a selected social issue in the health and medical field. For this study, representatives from the medical field, patient groups, industry, the press, and policy makers participated in a discussion focused on the medical and scientific evidence for the use of robotic surgery in gastric cancer. According to the RTC results, robotic surgery showed more favorable results in safety and efficacy than open surgery and it is similar to laparoscopy. When the cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery and laparoscopy is compared, robotic surgery costs are higher but there was no difference between the two of them in terms of effectiveness (pain, quality of life, complications, etc.). In order to resolve the high cost issue of the robotic surgery, a proper policy should be implemented to facilitate the development of a cost-effective model of the robotic surgery equipment. The higher cost of robotic surgery require more evidence of its safety and efficacy as well as the cost-effectiveness issues of this method. Discussions on the national insurance coverage of robotic surgery seems to be necessary in the near future.
Adenosine-5'-(N-ethylcarboxamide) ; Administrative Personnel ; Consensus* ; Health Policy ; Humans ; Insurance Coverage ; Korea ; Laparoscopy ; Quality of Life ; Stomach Neoplasms*