To ensure high-quality bioresources and standardize biobanks, there is an urgent need to develop and disseminate educational training programs in accordance with ISO 20387, which was developed in 2018. The standardization of biobank education programs is also required to train biobank experts. The subdivision of categories and levels of education is necessary for jobs such as operations manager (bank president), quality manager, practitioner, and administrator. Essential training includes programs tailored for beginner, intermediate, and advanced practitioners, along with customized training for operations managers. We reviewed and studied ways to develop an appropriate range of education and training opportunities for standard biobanking education and the training of experts based on KS J ISO 20387. We propose more systematic and professional biobanking training programs in accordance with ISO 20387, in addition to the certification programs of the National Biobank and the Korean Laboratory Accreditation System. We suggest various training programs appropriate to a student’s affiliation or work, such as university biobanking specialized education, short-term job training at unit biobanks, biobank research institute symposiums by the Korean Society of Pathologists, and education programs for biobankers and researchers. Through these various education programs, we expect that Korean biobanks will satisfy global standards, meet the needs of users and researchers, and contribute to the advancement of science.

To ensure high-quality bioresources and standardize biobanks, there is an urgent need to develop and disseminate educational training programs in accordance with ISO 20387, which was developed in 2018. The standardization of biobank education programs is also required to train biobank experts. The subdivision of categories and levels of education is necessary for jobs such as operations manager (bank president), quality manager, practitioner, and administrator. Essential training includes programs tailored for beginner, intermediate, and advanced practitioners, along with customized training for operations managers. We reviewed and studied ways to develop an appropriate range of education and training opportunities for standard biobanking education and the training of experts based on KS J ISO 20387. We propose more systematic and professional biobanking training programs in accordance with ISO 20387, in addition to the certification programs of the National Biobank and the Korean Laboratory Accreditation System. We suggest various training programs appropriate to a student’s affiliation or work, such as university biobanking specialized education, short-term job training at unit biobanks, biobank research institute symposiums by the Korean Society of Pathologists, and education programs for biobankers and researchers. Through these various education programs, we expect that Korean biobanks will satisfy global standards, meet the needs of users and researchers, and contribute to the advancement of science.

To ensure high-quality bioresources and standardize biobanks, there is an urgent need to develop and disseminate educational training programs in accordance with ISO 20387, which was developed in 2018. The standardization of biobank education programs is also required to train biobank experts. The subdivision of categories and levels of education is necessary for jobs such as operations manager (bank president), quality manager, practitioner, and administrator. Essential training includes programs tailored for beginner, intermediate, and advanced practitioners, along with customized training for operations managers. We reviewed and studied ways to develop an appropriate range of education and training opportunities for standard biobanking education and the training of experts based on KS J ISO 20387. We propose more systematic and professional biobanking training programs in accordance with ISO 20387, in addition to the certification programs of the National Biobank and the Korean Laboratory Accreditation System. We suggest various training programs appropriate to a student’s affiliation or work, such as university biobanking specialized education, short-term job training at unit biobanks, biobank research institute symposiums by the Korean Society of Pathologists, and education programs for biobankers and researchers. Through these various education programs, we expect that Korean biobanks will satisfy global standards, meet the needs of users and researchers, and contribute to the advancement of science.

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.