This study was conducted to confirm the provision standards and appropriateness of functional recovery training services performed on residents in long-term care facilities. Methods: Twenty-eight service providers working in four long-term care facilities applied the functional recovery training services to 63 older residents for 15 days, integrating them with their existing daily tasks. The contents recorded by the service providers on checklists were analyzed, and the experiences of applying functional recovery training services by the service providers were examined through focus group interviews. Results: Training for activities of daily living, excluding bathing, five items such as dressing and undressing are performed 2 to 4 times per day. The duration for one session is approximately 16 minutes for meals, around 10 minutes for bathing, and about 5 to 7 minutes for the remaining activities. Movement and walking training, covering five items like standing, occurs 2 to 3 times per day, with session durations ranging from 3 to 10 minutes. Physical activity training is conducted 1 to 2 times per day, with each session lasting about 5 to 7 minutes. Cognitive activity training is performed 1 to 2 times per day, with each session lasting approximately 4 to 7 minutes. Conclusion: For functional recovery training to be established in long-term care facilities, it is crucial to share an accurate understanding of the concept of training. Prior to the provision of training services, appropriate personnel such as nurses need to comprehensively assess the individuals and plan the training accordingly.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to develop a rehabilitation program for musculoskeletal pain experienced by gastrointestinal endoscopists and to investigate its usefulness. Methods: This was a multicenter cohort study. During the first 2 weeks, a questionnaire regarding daily workload and musculoskeletal symptoms was administered. Then, a rehabilitation program including equipment/posture correction and stretching was conducted during the remaining 6 weeks. Follow-up daily workload and musculoskeletal symptom surveys were distributed during the last 2 weeks. The program satisfaction survey was performed at the 6th and 8th weeks. Results: Among 118 participants (69 men), 94% (n=111) complained of musculoskeletal pain at baseline. Various hospital activities at baseline were associated with multisite musculoskeletal pain, whereas only a few workloads were correlated with musculoskeletal pain after the rehabilitation program. Follow-up musculoskeletal pain was negatively correlated with equipment/ posture program performance; arm/elbow pain was negatively correlated with elbow (R=–0.307) and wrist (R=–0.205) posture; leg/foot pain was negatively correlated with monitor position, shoulder, elbow, wrist, leg, and foot posture. Higher performance in the scope position (86.8% in the improvement vs 71.3% in the aggravation group, p=0.054) and table height (94.1% vs 79.1%, p=0.054) were associated with pain improvement. An increased number of colonoscopy procedures (6.27 in the aggravation vs 0.02 in the improvement group, p=0.017) was associated with pain aggravation. Most participants reported being average (32%) or satisfied (67%) with the program at the end of the study. Conclusions Our rehabilitation program is easily applicable, satisfactory, and helpful for improving the musculoskeletal pain experienced by gastrointestinal endoscopists.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Objective: The incidence of hip fractures is increasing worldwide with the aging population, causing a challenge to healthcare systems due to the associated morbidities and high risk of mortality. After hip fractures in frail geriatric patients, existing comorbidities worsen and new complications are prone to occur. Comprehensive rehabilitation is essential for promoting physical function recovery and minimizing complications, which can be achieved through a multidisciplinary approach. Recommendations are required to assist healthcare providers in making decisions on rehabilitation post-surgery. Clinical practice guidelines regarding rehabilitation (physical and occupational therapies) and management of comorbidities/complications in the postoperative phase of hip fractures have not been developed. This guideline aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for various treatment items required for proper recovery after hip fracture surgeries. Methods Reflecting the complex perspectives associated with rehabilitation post-hip surgeries, 15 key questions (KQs) reflecting the complex perspectives associated with post-hip surgery rehabilitation were categorized into four areas: multidisciplinary, rehabilitation, community-care, and comorbidities/complications. Relevant literature from four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed) was searched for articles published up to February 2020. The evidence level and recommended grade were determined according to the grade of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation method. Results A multidisciplinary approach, progressive resistance exercises, and balance training are strongly recommended. Early ambulation, weigh-bearing exercises, activities of daily living training, community-level rehabilitation, management of comorbidities/complication prevention, and nutritional support were also suggested. This multidisciplinary approach reduced the total healthcare cost. Conclusion This guideline presents comprehensive recommendations for the rehabilitation of adult patients after hip fracture surgery.

Objective: The incidence of hip fractures is increasing worldwide with the aging population, causing a challenge to healthcare systems due to the associated morbidities and high risk of mortality. After hip fractures in frail geriatric patients, existing comorbidities worsen and new complications are prone to occur. Comprehensive rehabilitation is essential for promoting physical function recovery and minimizing complications, which can be achieved through a multidisciplinary approach. Recommendations are required to assist healthcare providers in making decisions on rehabilitation post-surgery. Clinical practice guidelines regarding rehabilitation (physical and occupational therapies) and management of comorbidities/complications in the postoperative phase of hip fractures have not been developed. This guideline aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for various treatment items required for proper recovery after hip fracture surgeries. Methods Reflecting the complex perspectives associated with rehabilitation post-hip surgeries, 15 key questions (KQs) reflecting the complex perspectives associated with post-hip surgery rehabilitation were categorized into four areas: multidisciplinary, rehabilitation, community-care, and comorbidities/complications. Relevant literature from four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed) was searched for articles published up to February 2020. The evidence level and recommended grade were determined according to the grade of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation method. Results A multidisciplinary approach, progressive resistance exercises, and balance training are strongly recommended. Early ambulation, weigh-bearing exercises, activities of daily living training, community-level rehabilitation, management of comorbidities/complication prevention, and nutritional support were also suggested. This multidisciplinary approach reduced the total healthcare cost. Conclusion This guideline presents comprehensive recommendations for the rehabilitation of adult patients after hip fracture surgery.

Objective: To evaluate the gait pattern of patients with gait disturbances without consideration of defilades due to assistive devices. This study focuses on gait analysis using the inertial measurement unit (IMU) system, which can also be used to determine the most appropriate assistive device for patients with gait disturbances. Methods: Records of 18 disabled patients who visited the Department of Rehabilitation from May 2018 to June 2018 were selected. Patients’ gait patterns were analyzed using the IMU system with different assistive devices to determine the most appropriate device depending on the patient’s condition. Evaluation was performed using two or more devices, and the appropriate device was selected by comparing the 14 parameters of gait evaluation. The device showing measurements nearer or the nearest to the normative value was selected for rehabilitation. Results: The result of the gait evaluation in all 18 patients was analyzed using the IMU system. According to the records, the patients were evaluated using various assistive devices without consideration of defilades. Moreover, this gait analysis was effective in determining the most appropriate device for each patient. Increased gait cycle time and swing phase and decreased stance phase were observed in devices requiring significant assistance. Conclusion The IMU-based gait analysis system is beneficial in evaluating gait in clinical fields. Specifically, it is useful in evaluating patients with gait disturbances who require assistive devices. Furthermore, it allows the establishment of an evidence-based decision for the most appropriate assistive walking devices for patients with gait disturbances.