Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

Background: The oxygen reserve index (ORi) noninvasively measures oxygen levels within the mild hyperoxia range. To evaluate whether a degree of increase in the ORi during preoxygenation for general anesthesia is associated with the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: We enrolled 154 patients who underwent preoperative pulmonary function tests and were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. We aimed to measure the increase in ORi during preoxygenation before general anesthesia and analyze its association with PPCs. Results: PPCs occurred in 76 (49%) participants. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the three-minute preoxygenation ORi was significantly associated with PPCs (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.02, 95% CI [0.00–0.16], P < 0.001). The areas under the curve (AUC [95% CI]) in the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the three-minute preoxygenation ORi for PPCs were 0.64 (0.55–0.73). After a subgroup analysis, multivariate logistic regression showed that the three-minute preoxygenation ORi was significantly associated with PPCs among patients who underwent thoracic surgery (OR: 0.01, 95% CI [0.00–0.19], P = 0.006). The AUC of the three-minute preoxygenation ORi for PPCs was 0.72 (0.57–0.86) in patients who underwent thoracic surgery. Conclusions A low ORi measured after 3 min of preoxygenation for general anesthesia was associated with an increased risk of PPCs, including those undergoing thoracic surgery. This study demonstrated the potential of ORi, measured after oxygen administration, as a tool for evaluating lung function that complements traditional lung function tests and scoring systems.

Background: The oxygen reserve index (ORi) noninvasively measures oxygen levels within the mild hyperoxia range. To evaluate whether a degree of increase in the ORi during preoxygenation for general anesthesia is associated with the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Methods: We enrolled 154 patients who underwent preoperative pulmonary function tests and were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. We aimed to measure the increase in ORi during preoxygenation before general anesthesia and analyze its association with PPCs. Results: PPCs occurred in 76 (49%) participants. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the three-minute preoxygenation ORi was significantly associated with PPCs (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.02, 95% CI [0.00–0.16], P < 0.001). The areas under the curve (AUC [95% CI]) in the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the three-minute preoxygenation ORi for PPCs were 0.64 (0.55–0.73). After a subgroup analysis, multivariate logistic regression showed that the three-minute preoxygenation ORi was significantly associated with PPCs among patients who underwent thoracic surgery (OR: 0.01, 95% CI [0.00–0.19], P = 0.006). The AUC of the three-minute preoxygenation ORi for PPCs was 0.72 (0.57–0.86) in patients who underwent thoracic surgery. Conclusions A low ORi measured after 3 min of preoxygenation for general anesthesia was associated with an increased risk of PPCs, including those undergoing thoracic surgery. This study demonstrated the potential of ORi, measured after oxygen administration, as a tool for evaluating lung function that complements traditional lung function tests and scoring systems.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

The applicability of the Phoenix criteria and Phoenix Sepsis Score in higher-resource pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) outside the United States requires further validation. A retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic health records of 1,304 PICU admissions under 18 years old with suspected infection between February 2017 and December 2023. The score was calculated using two methods: 24-hour assessment, based on worst sub-scores within 24 hours of admission, and prompt assessment, using values closest to admission within 6 hours before or after. Based on the 24-hour assessment, in-hospital mortality was 8.3% for sepsis and 10.3% for septic shock. The score demonstrated an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.42 (95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.55) for in-hospital mortality. Results were consistent across both assessment methods. The Phoenix criteria and the Phoenix Sepsis Score are reliable predictors of mortality outcomes. Further investigation in diverse clinical settings is warranted.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.