ABSTRACT
Recently, various health associations have been attempting to establish separate bills favorable to their societies. A separate bill governing physical therapists was proposed at the 20th National Assembly in May 2019. The Korean Medical Association expressed strong concern about the introduction of the bill, while the Korean Physical Therapy Association welcomed it. Fortunately, the bill is currently pending in the National Assembly. Given the variety of opinions that coexist in the bill, this paper aims to point out the problems of separate bills and to suggest a proper response strategy by the medical community to the bill. First, we look at the original tasks of physical therapists throughout history. Second, we focus on legal problems regarding the physical therapist bill, based on the Constitutional Court's past rulings. Third, we seek response strategies of the medical community. In conclusion, the bill does not reflect the reality of medical care and makes many dangerous public health provisions. The National Assembly should carefully review the bill and listen to the opinions of the medical community.
ABSTRACT
Recently, various health associations have been attempting to establish separate bills favorable to their societies. A separate bill governing physical therapists was proposed at the 20th National Assembly in May 2019. The Korean Medical Association expressed strong concern about the introduction of the bill, while the Korean Physical Therapy Association welcomed it. Fortunately, the bill is currently pending in the National Assembly. Given the variety of opinions that coexist in the bill, this paper aims to point out the problems of separate bills and to suggest a proper response strategy by the medical community to the bill. First, we look at the original tasks of physical therapists throughout history. Second, we focus on legal problems regarding the physical therapist bill, based on the Constitutional Court's past rulings. Third, we seek response strategies of the medical community. In conclusion, the bill does not reflect the reality of medical care and makes many dangerous public health provisions. The National Assembly should carefully review the bill and listen to the opinions of the medical community.
ABSTRACT
Recently, various health associations have been attempting to establish separate bills favorable to their societies. A separate bill governing physical therapists was proposed at the 20th National Assembly in May 2019. The Korean Medical Association expressed strong concern about the introduction of the bill, while the Korean Physical Therapy Association welcomed it. Fortunately, the bill is currently pending in the National Assembly. Given the variety of opinions that coexist in the bill, this paper aims to point out the problems of separate bills and to suggest a proper response strategy by the medical community to the bill. First, we look at the original tasks of physical therapists throughout history. Second, we focus on legal problems regarding the physical therapist bill, based on the Constitutional Court's past rulings. Third, we seek response strategies of the medical community. In conclusion, the bill does not reflect the reality of medical care and makes many dangerous public health provisions. The National Assembly should carefully review the bill and listen to the opinions of the medical community.
Subject(s)
Humans , Physical Therapists , Public HealthABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Acute care surgery (ACS) models have evolved worldwide over the last decade. However, South Korea has an established trauma system and does not consider the ACS model. This study compares the management and outcome of emergency cholecystectomy in the ACS model to those of traditional on-call attending surgeon model for emergency surgery. METHODS: Retrospectively collected data for patients who underwent emergency cholecystectomy from May 2013 to January 2015 was analyzed to compare data from a traditional on-call system (OCS) and ACS. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study (62 patients ACS vs. 62 patients OCS). Hospital stay (days) (ACS=4.29±2.49 vs. OCS=4.82±4.48, p=0.46) and stay in emergency room (minutes) (ACS=213.10±113.99 vs. OCS=241.10±150.73, p=0.20) did not differ significantly between groups. Operation time (minutes) was significantly shorter in the ACS than OCS group (389.97±215.21 vs. 566.35±290.14, p<0.001). Other clinical variables (sex, open-conversion rate, whether the operation was performed at night/holiday, intensive care unit admission rate) did not differ between groups. There was no mortality and readmission. CONCLUSION: The implementation of the ACS led to shorter operation time and no increase of postoperative mortality and complication.