Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

Purpose: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

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.

Purpose: The importance of wound care as a part of end-of-life care is rising due to aging populations and increased chronic disease prevalence. This study developed a comprehensive competency framework on palliative wound care for nursing staff within long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: The study utilized a three-phased exploratory methods approach involving topic modeling, expert interviews, and a Delphi survey. Results: Four key competencies emerged regarding nursing competency for palliative wound care in LTCFs: (1) building partnerships with patients and caregivers, (2) an individual approach to wound treatment based on understanding the patient's situation, (3) a holistic approach through shared information and cooperative decision-making, and (4) integration of wound management knowledge within end-of-life care. Conclusion This framework supports developing targeted training programs for nurses to improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients in LTCFs.

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.

Purpose: The importance of wound care as a part of end-of-life care is rising due to aging populations and increased chronic disease prevalence. This study developed a comprehensive competency framework on palliative wound care for nursing staff within long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: The study utilized a three-phased exploratory methods approach involving topic modeling, expert interviews, and a Delphi survey. Results: Four key competencies emerged regarding nursing competency for palliative wound care in LTCFs: (1) building partnerships with patients and caregivers, (2) an individual approach to wound treatment based on understanding the patient's situation, (3) a holistic approach through shared information and cooperative decision-making, and (4) integration of wound management knowledge within end-of-life care. Conclusion This framework supports developing targeted training programs for nurses to improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients in LTCFs.

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.

Purpose: The importance of wound care as a part of end-of-life care is rising due to aging populations and increased chronic disease prevalence. This study developed a comprehensive competency framework on palliative wound care for nursing staff within long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: The study utilized a three-phased exploratory methods approach involving topic modeling, expert interviews, and a Delphi survey. Results: Four key competencies emerged regarding nursing competency for palliative wound care in LTCFs: (1) building partnerships with patients and caregivers, (2) an individual approach to wound treatment based on understanding the patient's situation, (3) a holistic approach through shared information and cooperative decision-making, and (4) integration of wound management knowledge within end-of-life care. Conclusion This framework supports developing targeted training programs for nurses to improve the quality of life for terminally ill patients in LTCFs.