OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are communal environments for patients with chronic diseases or older adults, making them particularly susceptible to significant harm during infectious disease outbreaks. Nonetheless, LTCFs have historically been subject to less stringent infection prevention and control (IPC) mandates. This study aimed to assess the current state of LTCFs and to develop an IPC system tailored for these facilities following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 11,366 LTCFs in Korea from December 30, 2022 to January 20, 2023, to evaluate the components of IPC in LTCFs. The infectious diseases targeted for IPC included COVID-19, influenza, and scabies. Additionally, we compared institution-based and home-based long-term care insurance facilities. RESULTS: Overall, 3,537 (31.1%) LTCFs responded to the survey, comprising 1,819 (51.4%) institution-based and 1,718 (48.6%) home-based facilities. A majority (87.4%, 2,376/2,720) of these facilities experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. However, only 42.2% of home-based facilities, in contrast to 90.6% of institution-based facilities, were equipped to manage concurrent COVID-19 cases. Similarly, while 92.1% of institution-based facilities were capable of managing influenza, only 50.5% of home-based facilities could do the same. The incidence of scabies was significantly higher in institution-based facilities than in home-based ones (26.1 vs. 4.3%). Additionally, 88.7% of institution-based facilities managed scabies cases effectively, compared to only 42.1% of home-based facilities. CONCLUSIONS Approximately half of the LTCFs had a basic capacity to respond to infectious diseases. However, there were differences in response capabilities between institution-based facilities and home-based facilities.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Background: Hand hygiene is considered the simplest and most cost-effective method of infection prevention. Regular observation and feedback on hand hygiene compliance are key strategies for its enhancement. This study evaluated the effectiveness of hand hygiene surveillance, including direct observation and feedback, by comprehensively analyzing the reported hand hygiene compliance within the Korean National Healthcare-Associated Infections Surveillance System from 2019 to 2022. Methods: Participating medical institutions included general hospitals and hospitals with infection control departments that consented to participate. Hand hygiene surveillance was conducted using direct observation. Collected data, including healthcare workers, clinical areas, hand hygiene moments, and hand hygiene compliance, were recorded to calculate hand hygiene compliance rates. Additionally, the volume of alcohol-based hand sanitizers used per patient per day was investigated as an indirect indicator of hand hygiene compliance. The study was conducted from July 2019 to December 2022. Results: Hand hygiene compliance increased from 87.2% in Q3 2019 to 89.9% in 2022. Nurses and medical technologists showed the highest compliance rates, whereas doctors showed the lowest compliance rates. Intensive care units excelled in compliance, whereas emergency de partments lagged. Compliance was highest after patient contact and lowest when the patient’s surroundings were touched. Larger hospitals consumed more alcohol-based hand sanitizers than smaller hospitals did. Conclusion This study confirmed an improvement in hand hygiene compliance through sustained surveillance, indicating its contribution not only to preventing infection transfer within healthcare facilities but also to fostering a culture of hand hygiene in the country.

Background/Aims: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the management of colorectal cancer (CRC) may worse in elderly population, as almost all COVID-19 deaths occurred in the elderly patients. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on CRC management in the elderly population. Methods: The numbers of patients who underwent colonoscopy, who visited hospitals or operated for CRC in 2020 and 2021 (COVID-19 era) were compared with those in 2019, according to 3 age groups (≥70 years, 50–69 years, and ≤49 years), based on the nationwide, population-based database (2019–2021) in South Korea. Results: The annual volumes of colonoscopy and hospital visits for CRC in 2020 were more significantly declined in the old age group than in the young age group (both P<0.001). In addition, the annual volume of patients operated for CRC numerically more declined in old age group than in young age group. During the first surge of COVID-19 (March and April 2020), old age patients showed statistically significant declines for the monthly number of colonoscopies (–46.5% vs. –39.3%, P<0.001), hospital visits (–15.4% vs. –7.9%, P<0.001), CRC operations (–33.8% vs. –0.7%, P<0.05), and colonoscopic polypectomies (–41.8% vs. –38.0%, P<0.001) than young age patients, compared with those of same months in 2019. Conclusions Elderly population are more vulnerable for the management of CRC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the elderly population are more carefully cared for in the management of CRC during the next pandemic.

Background/Aims: Non-time-sensitive gastrointestinal endoscopy was deferred because of the risk of exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but no population-based studies have quantified the adverse impact on gastrointestinal procedures. This study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the performance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, ERCP, and abdominal ultrasonography (US) in South Korea. Methods: This nationwide, population-based study compared the claim data of EGD, colonoscopy, ERCP, and abdominal US in 2020 and 2021 (COVID-19 era) with those in 2019 (before the COVID-19 era). Results: During the first year (2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic, the annual claim data of EGD and colonoscopy were reduced by 6.3% and 6.9%, respectively, but those of ERCP and abdominal US were increased by 1.0% and 2.9%, compared to those in 2019. During the first surge (March and April 2020) of COVID-19, the monthly claim data of EGD, colonoscopy, ERCP, and abdominal US were reduced by 28.8%, 43.8%, 5.1%, and 21.6%, respectively, in March 2020, and also reduced by 17.2%, 32.8%, 4.4%, and 9.5%, respectively, in April 2020, compared to those in March and April 2019. During March and April 2020, the monthly claims of ERCP, compared with those in 2019, declined less significantly than those of EGD and colonoscopy (both p<0.001). Conclusions The claims of EGD and colonoscopy were reduced more significantly than those of ERCP and abdominal US during the COVID-19 pandemic because ERCPs are time-sensitive procedures and abdominal USs are non-aerosolized procedures.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Adolescents who skip breakfast have an increased prevalence of chronic diseases. Thus, we aimed to evaluate whether the intake of rice-based breakfast had positive effects on blood glucose indices and to determine the possibility of diabetes prevalence in Korean youths who habitually skip breakfast. SUBJECTS/METHODS: In this randomized parallel-group controlled trial, 81 subjects who were suitable for compliance among 105 middle-and high-school students aged 12-18 years who usually skipped breakfast were included in this study (rice-meal group [RMG], n = 26; wheat-meal group [WMG], n = 29; general-meal group [GMG], n = 26). The RMG and WMG received a rice-based breakfast and a wheat-based breakfast for 12 weeks, respectively. The anthropometric indices, blood glucose indices, and metabolites were measured at baseline and the endpoint, respectively. RESULTS: The mean body weights in the RMG, WMG, and GMG groups at the endpoint were 62.44 kg, 61.80 kg, and 60.28 kg, respectively, and the mean body weights of the WMG and GMG groups at the endpoint were significantly higher than that at baseline (P < 0.05). The levels of fasting insulin and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) values were significantly decreased in the RMG group at the endpoint compared to baseline (P < 0.05, P < 0.05, respectively). The levels of tryptophan and tyrosine in the WMG group at the endpoint were significantly higher than that those at baseline (P < 0.01, P < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Rice-based breakfast has positive effects on fasting insulin levels and HOMA-IR in Korean adolescents who skip breakfast. Additionally, it was found that a skipping breakfast could increase the prevalence of diabetes in adolescents who skip breakfast. Therefore, in addition to reducing breakfast skipping, it is vital to develop a ricebased menu that fits teenage preferences to prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes.