Expert Consensus on the Structure, Role, and Procedures of the Korea Expert Committee on Immunization Practices.

BACKGROUND: The Korea Expert Committee on Immunization Practices (KECIP) is a key advisory body the government to develop guidelines and provide technical advisory activities on immunization policies in Korea. A recent policy study, inspired by global best practices, aims to enhance KECIP's functionality for providing timely and transparent recommendations in the face of evolving vaccine science and emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19. METHODS: This study reviewed the current status of KECIP and collected expert opinions through surveys and consultations. Among the 40 panel members who were surveyed, 19 responded to a questionnaire specifically designed to assess the potential areas of improvement within KECIP. RESULTS: The majority of respondents favored maintaining the current member count and emphasized the need for a subcommittee. Opinions varied on issues such as the length of KECIP's term, the representation of vaccine manufacturers' perspectives, and the chairperson's role. However, there was a consensus on the importance of expertise, transparency, and fair proceedings within the committee. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the pivotal role of KECIP in shaping national immunization policies, emphasizing the necessity for informed guidance amidst evolving vaccine science and emerging infectious diseases. Furthermore, it stressed the importance of enhancing KECIP's capacity to effectively address evolving public health challenges and maintain successful immunization programs in South Korea.

A nationwide survey on the implementation of infection prevention and control components in 1442 hospitals in the Republic of Korea: comparison to the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF).

BACKGROUND: The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to underscore the inadequacy of infection prevention and control (IPC) and the importance of its sound establishment in healthcare facilities. The Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework (IPCAF) by the World Health Organization allows systematic assessment of IPC capacity in healthcare facilities and has been applied in many national-level surveys. This study aims to assess the IPC capacity of Korean hospitals as well as their strengths and pitfalls by analyzing the results of the first government-led nationwide IPC survey in comparison to the IPCAF frame. METHODS: The Korean National Infection Prevention and Control Survey (KNIPCS) was conducted from February to March 2018. The survey questionnaire for KNIPCS was developed through a series of expert consultations and a round of pre-testing in two randomly selected hospitals. The survey questionnaire was distributed to a total of 2108 hospitals. Although the survey preceded the release of IPCAF, its contents complied with IPCAF to a large extent, allowing exploration of its results with regards to IPCAF. RESULTS: All tertiary hospitals and 96.5% of general hospitals had implemented IPC teams, whereas the percentage was lower for long-term care hospitals (6.3%). A similar trend was observed for IPC surveillance and monitoring activities across hospital types. The percentage of interactive IPC training was lower than 30% in all hospital groups. Disinfection was frequently monitored in all hospital types (e.g. 97.3% in general hospitals and 85.3% in long-term care hospitals). However, activities regarding antimicrobial resistance, such as multi-drug resistant pathogen screening, were weak in hospitals (25%) and long-term care hospitals (25%), compared to tertiary hospitals (83.3%) and general hospitals (57.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In general, essential IPC structures, such as IPC teams and programs, were well in place in most tertiary and general hospitals in Korea. These hospital groups also actively conducted various IPC activities. As most previous legislative and multimodal policy measures have targeted these hospital groups, we speculate that future policy efforts should encompass long-term care hospitals and smaller-sized hospitals to strengthen the IPC capacity of these hospital groups. Efforts should also be put forth to promote IPC training and antimicrobial activities.

Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the optimal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) frequency range for treating urinary stones, i.e., high-frequency (100-120 waves/minute), intermediate-frequency (80-90 waves/minute), and low-frequency (60-70 waves/minute) lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant RCTs were identified from electronic databases for meta-analysis of SWL success and complication rates. Using pairwise and network meta-analyses, comparisons were made by qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Outcome variables are provided as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis using pairwise and network meta-analyses. On pairwise meta-analyses, comparable inter-study heterogeneity was observed for the success rate. On network meta-analyses, the success rates of low- (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-2.6) and intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3-4.6) were higher than high-frequency SWL. Forest plots from the network meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the success rate between low-frequency SWL versus intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.51-1.7). There were no differences in complication rate across different SWL frequency ranges. By rank-probability testing, intermediate-frequency SWL was ranked highest for success rate, followed by low-frequency and high-frequency SWL. Low-frequency SWL was also ranked highest for low complication rate, with high- and intermediate-frequency SWL ranked lower. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate- and low-frequency SWL have better treatment outcomes than high-frequency SWL when considering both efficacy and complication.