Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

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.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between social capital and depression in adults in their 20s. Methods: The study used data from the Community Health Survey 2019 (CHS 2019). The CHS 2019 covered a representative sample of 229099 adults from 17 census tracts in the Republic of Korea, of which 19589 adults in their 20s were taken as subjects for this study. The subjects completed a survey with questions regarding demographic characteristics, built environment and social capital. The symptoms of depression were evaluated through the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine whether social capital was associated with depression. Results: The multiple logistic regression results indicated that social capital was associated with depression in adults in their 20s. When demographic characteristics and built environment were included in the analysis, trust, contact with relatives, contact with friends, and social activities were associated with depression in adults in their 20s. Conclusion A lack of social capital was associated with depression in Korean adults in their 20s. Our study suggests a need to look beyond individual factors to intervene in national and community social capital and prevent depression in adults in their 20s.

Objective: This study evaluated protective behaviors against coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and related factors in individuals with depressive symptoms. Methods: This cross-sectional study included data from the 2020 Korean Community Health Survey. Depressive symptoms, COVID- 19 protection behaviors, and related factors were investigated in 228,485 people. Chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were used to analyze categorical variables. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 27.0). Results: In the study, 3.9% (n=8,970) had depressive symptoms. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was higher in individuals in their 19–39 years , and ≥60s than in those in their 40–59 years (p<0.001). Lower education level and household income were associated with a higher prevalence of depression (p<0.001). Among the various occupations, service workers had the highest prevalence of depressive symptoms (p<0.001). Individuals with depressive symptoms were less likely to adopt protective behaviors against COVID-19 (p<0.001) or exhibit concerns regarding death and economic damage (p<0.001) compared to individuals without depressive symptoms. Individuals with depressive symptoms were more likely to have unhealthy behaviors than those without depressive symptoms (p<0.001). Individuals with depressive symptoms considered that the COVID-19 response by the government and other organizations was inadequate (p<0.001). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals with depressive symptoms faced greater challenges in adopting protective behaviors. Therefore, it is crucial to develop strategies to protect people with depressive symptoms during another pandemic in the future.