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.

Background: Chromosomal alterations serve as diagnostic and prognostic markers in acute leukemia. Given the evolving landscape of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia, we previously studied these over two periods. In this study, we investigated the frequency of these abnormalities and clinical trends in acute leukemia in Korea across three time periods. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 1,787 patients with acute leukemia (319 children and 1,468 adults) diagnosed between 2006 and 2020. Conventional cytogenetics, FISH, and multiplex quantitative PCR were used for analysis. The patient groups were divided according to the following three study periods: 2006–2009 (I), 2010–2015 (II), and 2016–2020 (III). Results: Chromosomal aberrations were detected in 92% of patients. The PML::RARA translocation was the most frequent. Over the 15-yr period, chromosomal aberrations showed minimal changes, with specific fusion transcripts being common among patients.ALL was more prevalent in children than in adults and correlated significantly with the ETV6::RUNX1 and RUNX1::RUNX1T1 aberrations. The incidence of ALL increased during the three periods, with PML::RARA remaining common. Conclusions The frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia has changed subtly over time. Notably, the age of onset of adult AML has continuously increased. Our results may help in establishing diagnoses and clinical treatment strategies and developing various molecular diagnostic platforms.

Objectives: The Ministry of Education in South Korea conducts an annual Student Emotional and Behavioral Characteristics Test to facilitate early identification and intervention for mental health issues among adolescents. Students who exceed the screening cut-off undergo a secondary in-depth evaluation. In response to the increasing use of remote services following the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this study aimed to compare satisfaction and perceived reliability of face-to-face and remote formats of the secondary evaluation as reported by school personnel responsible for conducting the assessments. Methods: A total of 94 school personnel who oversaw the 2023 secondary evaluations in a metropolitan area participated in an anonymous online survey. The survey assessed their satisfaction with the evaluation period, perceived reliability of the evaluation process, and perceived reliability of the written reports. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on their experience with and preference for each evaluation format. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare differences between groups. Results: No significant differences were found between the face-to-face and remote groups in satisfaction with the evaluation period or the reliability of the written results. However, the face-to-face format was perceived as significantly more reliable in terms of the evaluation process itself. Among participants who had experience with both formats, the face-to-face format continued to receive higher reliability ratings, particularly among those who preferred face-to-face assessments. In contrast, those who preferred remote assessments showed no significant differences regardless of the format used. Conclusions Although some counselors express concern about the reliability of remote assessments, the findings suggest that remote formats can yield comparable results to face-to-face evaluations in terms of satisfaction and outcome reliability. While remote assessments may not fully replace in-person interactions, they can serve as a valid and efficient alternative, particularly for large-scale mental health screenings in school settings. Expanding the use of structured remote evaluations may enhance accessibility and responsiveness in school-based mental health services.

Background: This study aimed to document the patterns, challenges, and opportunities for biobank utilization within the Female Breast and Genital Disease with Microbiome Biobank Network (FDMNet) in South Korea. Annual surveys (2022–2024) assessed researcher awareness, utilization patterns, barriers to access, research requirements, and interest in microbiome research. Methods: Online questionnaires were distributed to staff members at five university hospitals participating in FDMNet. Data from 155 respondents across 3 years were analyzed using descriptive statistics for quantitative data. Qualitative feedback was examined using Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection and natural language processing to identify the thematic clusters of user challenges. Results: Despite high engagement with biobank resources (76% of the respondents), declining participation rates and interinstitutional collaborations were observed, particularly in 2024, amid the nationwide healthcare crisis. The major barriers to utilization included complex access procedures (31.0%), lack of process knowledge (23.9%), and concerns about Institutional Review Board approval (11.6%). Breast neoplasms (12.3%) and female genital neoplasms (11.0%) were the primary research interests, with blood (24.5%) and tissue (23.9%) samples being the most requested specimens. Most respondents (66.5%) expressed interest in microbiome research but reported insufficient knowledge. Conclusion These findings highlight the need for streamlined access procedures, improved researcher education, enhanced clinical data integration, and stronger governance structures to overcome existing barriers to biobank utilization. These insights can guide strategic improvements in biobank operations and resource allocation to serve the evolving needs of the research community better.