15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Pandemic preparedness of an academic medical center in the Republic of Korea

      discussion

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in 2015 was an unprecedented challenge to academic medical centers in the Republic of Korea. It involved 186 confirmed cases and 38 fatalities all across the country, and notably, nearly half of the cases were nosocomial infections (1). This tragic outbreak led to a call for fundamental changes in the Korean healthcare system to prepare for potential infectious disease outbreaks in the future (2,3). Academic medical centers set out to transform their environment with two major goals of 1) preparedness for emerging infectious diseases, and 2) reduction of nosocomial infections (4). Here we describe an example of a major academic institution, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital (SNUBH), focusing on three key aspects of preparedness: renovating infrastructure, training healthcare professionals, and constructing a community-based response system to infectious disease outbreaks. Renovating infrastructure On September 1, 2016, the national health insurance in Korea introduced a new policy providing reimbursements for hospitals equipped with infection control and prevention measures meeting new standards. Eligible hospitals could be reimbursed at a per diem rate for every inpatient. The rate was determined by the number of infection control nurses per inpatient beds (one per 150 beds for tier 1, one per 200 beds for tier 2) (5). To meet the tier 1 reimbursement policy, SNUBH newly hired qualified personnel to increase the number from three full-time and two part-time staff to nine full-time staff. They developed hospital protocols for responding to emerging infectious diseases, conducted surveillance of nosocomial infections, and educated hospital staff. An enhanced workforce improved the hospital’s capacity for nosocomial infection control and pandemic preparedness. Another important change was the installation of high-level isolation units (HLIUs) (6). Because of the ever-increasing trend of international travel and immigration, there was an urgent need to renovate the hospital infrastructure in order to prepare for novel infectious diseases without compromising the health and safety of the health care workers. SNUBH leadership formed a new task force in February 2016 to develop HLIUs. A total of nine single-patient rooms were installed by August 2017. All rooms were designed to generate a negative pressure environment to minimize nosocomial transmissions amidst a highly transmissible disease outbreak. Five of those were also equipped to provide critical care including mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The costs of installing HLIUs were partly funded by the government through the Korea Centers for Disease Control (KCDC)’s initiative for nationally designated isolation units. As of 2019, there were a total of 535 beds within nationally designated isolation units in 29 hospitals nationwide, established through this initiative. Among them, 198 beds were in negative pressure isolation units, including nine at SNUBH (7). To guide the clinical management of patients with highly contagious diseases in HLIUs, the infection control office of the hospital developed an in-house protocol with the aim of preventing secondary transmissions of pathogens. To develop this, infection control officers reviewed relevant KCDC protocols and adapted them through discussions with a multidisciplinary group of hospital staff. Additionally, they defined an organizational structure in which members of the Infectious Control Task Force would be activated in times of active infectious disease threats with predefined roles in order to enable organized decision-making and to facilitate effective communication. Furthermore, the infection control office stratified the hospital’s responses according to the level of the national alert system for infectious diseases (Table 1 ). Detailed practice manuals - for example, environment and waste management and close contact management - were also developed to be readily applicable in epidemic situations. For intra- and inter-hospital HLIU patient transfers, patient flows were specified in order to minimize the transmission risks to other patients and hospital staff. An entrance was also designated for exclusive use for transporting patients requiring HLIUs or contaminated materials. The first version of the protocol was approved by the Medical Executive Committee at SNUBH, enacted in August 2017, and updated on a yearly basis (see web-only Supplementary Table S1). Table 1 Hospital response protocols by the national alert level for infectious diseases Table 1 National alert levels Hospital response Departments in charge of infectious disease control Infectious diseases control task force Management of patient with EIDs Control of the hospital entrances Education and training of all hospital staff Promotion of infection control measures Mobilization of healthcare workers and resources Attention (Blue) EIDs overseas with no immediate threat of importation ■ Review relevant KCDC protocols ■ Notify and educate on general infection control measures Caution (Yellow) Domestic importation of EIDs from abroad ■ Monitor the national outbreak status ■ Hold simulation exercises ■ Activate an infectious diseases control task force for key decision making ■ Prepare to operate high-level isolation units (HLIUs) ■ Prepare to operate screening clinics outside of hospital entrance ■ Distribute guidelines for infectious disease response ■ Educate the staff on the specifics of infection control measures ■ Post public health information leaflets and banners around the hospital Alert (Orange) Confined spread of EIDs within the country ■ Operate a 24-hour emergency response system ■ Strengthen infection control measures ■ Admit and treat patients with EIDs in HLIUs ■ Operate screening stations at hospital entrances and screening clinicsa ■ Strengthen the education and training for all hospital staff (e.g. PPE training) ■ Strengthen the promotions of public health information within the hospital Serious (Red) Spread of EIDs in communities across the country ■ Strengthen the operations of infectious diseases control task force (e.g., daily hospital-wide updates) ■ Strengthen infection control measures ■ Admit and treat patients with EIDs in HLIUs ■ Install temporary isolation wards using negative pressure devices ■ Strengthen the entrance control ■ Strengthen the education and training ■ Establish occupational health program (e.g., daily self-report) ■ Devise public health promotional plans through media to reach the surrounding communities ■ Mobilize the reserve hospital staff and resources ■ Devise a regional and national plan for infection control EIDs: Emerging infectious diseases. a The screening stations at the hospital entrances are aimed to screen patients and visitors for symptoms related to EIDs (e.g., fever, respiratory symptoms) or epidemiologic risk factors (e.g., recent travel history to an endemic region) to prevent any unprepared entry into the hospital. Suspected people are triaged to the screening clinic, a temporary facility located outside of the main hospital building, for further evaluation for EID. Lastly, to protect the healthcare workers caring for patients in the HLIUs, SNUBH procured a large supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) through coordination with the Korean government. This step was prompted by the hospital’s experiences of admitting suspected patients with Ebola and MERS, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitations in HLIUs, and PPE training for hospital staff. Training healthcare workers SNUBH introduced multiple new education programs to enhance healthcare workers’ understanding and preparedness for emerging infectious diseases. A new session entitled “Responding to emerging infectious diseases” was added to the mandatory education program for all hospital employees. In addition, PPE training programs were conducted regularly. Every PPE training session included a demonstration of PPE donning and doffing and hands-on exercises. Participants practiced as a pair, using a fluorescent solution to evaluate the degree of contamination during the PPE doffing procedure. Basic supplies of this training included an N95 respirator and a set of level D PPE (defined by the KCDC), which was comprised of a waterproof coverall with an attached hood, goggles, inner and outer gloves, and shoe covers. An advanced training session was performed with powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) or level C PPE, composed of chemically-resistant clothing and eye protection. Since the first regular PPE training held on January 18, 2017, SNUBH provided 1,191 days of staff training between 2017 to 2019, and nearly 40% of the training included the use of PAPRs (see web-only Supplementary Table S2). The PPE training was particularly emphasized for clinical staff taking care of patients in HLIUs. Physicians and nurses were required to have completed the PPE training in the prior 6 months in order to work at HLIUs. Staff involved in critical care at HLIUs were also required to participate in annual trainings with PAPRs. Furthermore, simulation exercises were developed to prepare for complex clinical situations and first conducted in August 2017, including a clinical scenario of an admission of a patient with MERS-CoV to the HLIU. Participants practiced wearing full sets of PPE, entering a negative pressure room, managing clinical problems, and safely taking off PPEs upon exiting the room. Three months later, the hospital started a biannual multidisciplinary workshop with simulation exercises and subsequent evaluations. Based on feedback, the hospital improved its clinical protocols and equipment, and simulated multiple clinical situations, including an inpatient outbreak from secondary transmission, patient triage and management in the emergency department, cardiopulmonary resuscitation on infected patients, and managing the remains of infected patients who died in the hospital. In 2019, the workshop was expanded into a joint workshop with other neighboring hospitals in the province that had nationally designated isolation units. The clinical workforce harnessed experience accumulated from treating patients suspected of MERS-CoV and viral hemorrhagic fevers (137 and 6 patients from 2017 to 2019, respectively). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, patients suspected of emerging infectious diseases were treated in HLIUs, regardless of disease severity. The hospital continuously improved training and preparedness protocols to reflect the lessons learned. Community-based response network in collaboration with the provincial government Finally, SNUBH helped establish a network among other hospitals and governmental agencies to cope with the massive outbreak (8). SNUBH took on the responsibility of leading the infection control initiatives in Gyeonggi-do, a densely populated province with 13 million residents surrounding metropolitan Seoul. SNUBH initiated the first provincial Gyeonggi-do Infectious Disease Control Center (GIDCC) in April 2014, accredited by the Gyeonggi provincial government and the KCDC. During the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, GIDCC held simulation exercises with multiple stakeholders, based on a clinical scenario of an Ebola outbreak. These preemptive preparations and drills helped Gyeonggi-do to respond to MERS-CoV cases during the outbreak in 2015. For example, the province rapidly created a bed allocation system by disease severity, which was a new strategy developed during the outbreak to isolate all patients through risk stratification. In Gyeonggi-do, two hospitals were designated for the treatment of MERS patients. While coordinating the GIDCC, SNUBH focused on treating patients with severe clinical presentations of MERS. Meanwhile, a public community hospital took charge of patients with less severe disease. Through local collaboration, the Gyeonggi province was able to contain the MERS-CoV cases efficiently in its area. Since then, SNUBH continued to provide support for infection control in the community. Infection control education programs were held for staff at long-term care facilities, school nurses, and infection control nurses at local hospitals. SNUBH worked with public health authorities and other hospitals in order to reassess and promote provincial preparedness for infectious disease threats following the MERS outbreak. This long-term collaboration paved the way for better communication and collaboration among key parties (hospitals, local governments, and communities) that ultimately allowed a rapid activation of the regional response system when the current COVID-19 pandemic began (9,10). COVID-19 Response and Conclusion Five years after the MERS-CoV outbreak, Korea was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic in January 2020. Both Korean government and hospitals were better prepared than in 2015 (Figure 1 ). Since SNUBH admitted Korea’s first suspected COVID-19 patient on January 7, 2020, more than a hundred confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases have been treated in the hospital. Through the regional triage system, SNUBH primarily provided advanced care for critically-ill COVID-19 patient while moderately-ill patients were admitted to the dedicated community hospital. SNUBH also took care of mildly-ill patients who were admitted at the Gyeonggi Community Treatment Center, a repurposed non-medical facility, from March 19 to April 29, 2020. By enacting strict isolation and triage protocols, SNUBH has had no reported cases of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission and has not had to halt the care of non-COVID-19 patients. (The timeline of pandemic preparations and the COVID-19 response in South Korea and SNUBH, along with the distribution of admitted patients across different levels of service are summarized in the web-only Supplementary Figure S1 and Table 2 , respectively.) Figure 1 Pandemic preparedness of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. * Infectious diseases control task force consists of an executive board, a clinical management team (department of infectious diseases, respiratory diseases, emergency medicine, and pediatrics), an infection control team (infection control physicians and nurses, and the occupational health office), a clinical support team (department of laboratory, radiology, pharmacology, and nutrition), a nursing team, and an administrative team. * HLIU: high-level isolation units. Figure 1 Table 2 COVID-19 Response of Seoul National University Bundang Hospital: goals, actions, and outcomes Table 2 Goals Actions Outcomes Identify, isolate and report early cases Identification and report ● SARS-CoV-2 testing at hospital laboratory and commercial laboratories ● A COVID-19 screening clinic outside of the hospital building and pre-triage zone at the emergency department entrance Isolation ● Activation of high-level isolation units with extensive triage protocol ● Installation of temporary isolation wards using negative pressure devices ● Triage to a pre-emptive isolation ward for patients with risk factors ● 2,572 patients visited the COVID-19 screening clinic with 596 (23.2%) tested (as of June 16) ● 2,698 patients were triaged at the emergency department, with 506 (18.8%) tested and 453 (16.8%) admitted in isolation wards (as of June 16) ● 782 patients were isolated pre-emptively (as of July 10) Keep the health-care system functioning for pandemic and non-pandemic patients ● In-hospital triage protocols for hospital entrance, the emergency department, and COVID-19 screening clinic ● Policies for patient flow to separate the area for COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients ● Establishment of regional triage system for bed allocation based on patients’ medical needs, including utilization of non-medical facilities (community treatment center, CTC) ● 133 COVID-19 confirmed or suspected patients treated at the hospital (58 and 75, respectively, as of July 10) ● A total of 17 patients required critical care (≥high -flow oxygen therapy) and 7 patients received mechanical ventilation ● 201 mildly-ill COVID-19 patients managed at the Gyeonggi CTC ● Most of the elective surgeries and outpatient clinics continued as scheduled Reduce the risk of pandemic acute respiratory infection transmission associated with health care ● Treating COVID-19 patients in negative pressure isolation units ● Training healthcare workers: (1) regularly scheduled personal protective equipment training, (2) bi-annual workshops for development of epidemic scenarios and simulation exercises ● Establishment of occupational health programmes, including surveillance of healthcare workers through electronic questionnaire ● Risk communication: (1) sharing information by emails and intranet on the daily basis, (2) text messaging when an immediate survey of epidemiological risk factors of hospital workers was needed, (3) communication with health authorities and other hospitals coordinated by the infection control office ● No nosocomial infections, including no healthcare worker infections Note. Goals at the left column were adapted from “Infection prevention and control of epidemic-and pandemic-prone acute respiratory infections in health care”, by WHO, 2014. Since the MERS-CoV outbreak, many academic medical centers in Korea have taken an active role in not only preparing their facilities and staff, but also their communities and regional governments, allowing the country as a whole to effectively tackle the current wave of COVID-19. Although the level of community spread in Korea has been relatively moderate due to widespread testing, rigorous contact tracing, and mandatory quarantine, current efforts will be maintained to prepare for potential future outbreaks of COVID-19. As countries overcome surges and likely face future waves, academic medical centers around the world can continue to take up a similar mantle of preparation, innovation, training, critical care, and community leadership. Transparency declaration All authors have stated that there are no conflicts of interest to declare. No funding was received for this study. Authors’ contributions JA-RA and K-HS contributed equally to this work. JA-RA, K-HS, ESK, J-HK, AB, and HBK conceived the study. K-HS, ESK, JJ, JYP, JSP, HL, MJS, HYL, SL, KUP, and HBK collected data. JA-RA, K-HS, ESK, RK, and J-HK wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version for submission.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Middle East respiratory syndrome: what we learned from the 2015 outbreak in the Republic of Korea

          Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first isolated from a patient with severe pneumonia in 2012. The 2015 Korea outbreak of MERSCoV involved 186 cases, including 38 fatalities. A total of 83% of transmission events were due to five superspreaders, and 44% of the 186 MERS cases were the patients who had been exposed in nosocomial transmission at 16 hospitals. The epidemic lasted for 2 months and the government quarantined 16,993 individuals for 14 days to control the outbreak. This outbreak provides a unique opportunity to fill the gap in our knowledge of MERS-CoV infection. Therefore, in this paper, we review the literature on epidemiology, virology, clinical features, and prevention of MERS-CoV, which were acquired from the 2015 Korea outbreak of MERSCoV.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            National Response to COVID-19 in the Republic of Korea and Lessons Learned for Other Countries

            In the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Republic of Korea (South Korea) had the second highest number of cases globally yet was able to dramatically lower the incidence of new cases and sustain a low mortality rate, making it a promising example of strong national response. We describe the main strategies undertaken and selected facilitators and challenges in order to identify transferable lessons for other countries working to control the spread and impact of COVID-19. Identified strategies included early recognition of the threat and rapid activation of national response protocols led by national leadership; rapid establishment of diagnostic capacity; scale-up of measures for preventing community transmission; and redesigning the triage and treatment systems, mobilizing the necessary resources for clinical care. Facilitators included existing hospital capacity, the epidemiology of the COVID-19 outbreak, and strong national leadership despite political changes and population sensitization due to the 2015 Middle East respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic. Challenges included sustaining adequate human resources and supplies in high-caseload areas. Key recommendations include (1) recognize the problem, (2) establish diagnostic capacity, (3) implement aggressive measures to prevent community transmission, (4) redesign and reallocate clinical resources for the new environment, and (5) work to limit economic impact through and while prioritizing controlling the spread and impact of COVID-19. South Korea's strategies to prevent, detect, and respond to the pandemic represent applicable knowledge that can be adopted by other countries and the global community facing the enormous COVID-19 challenges ahead.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Preparedness for emerging epidemic threats: a Lancet Infectious Diseases Commission

              At any time, an emerging, lethal, and highly transmissible pathogen might pose a risk of being spread globally because of the interconnectedness of the global population.1, 2 Emerging epidemic threats are occurring with increasing scale, duration, and effect, often disrupting travel and trade, and damaging both national and regional economies.3, 4 Even geographically limited outbreaks such as the Ebola virus disease in Africa might have a global effect. Preparing for epidemic threats is not a static or binary (prepared or unprepared) exercise, but a dynamic state reflecting the constantly changing world. Countries prepare in different ways based on their interpretation of disease risks and international agreements such as the International Health Regulations (IHR). The IHR were introduced in 1969 to prevent spread of specific serious diseases between countries and set out preparedness measures at international borders to stop disease spread. The 2005 revisions to the IHR reflect changes across multiple dimensions, requiring countries to develop preparedness capacities to detect and respond to outbreaks where and when they occur, supported by international partners to respond when outbreaks cannot be contained locally. 5 However, disruptive factors have emerged at a greater pace over the past decade, creating a new ecology that requires novel strategies for preparedness. These factors include dealing with the increasing human population density and connectivity, harnessing novel data streams and new technological advances to manage epidemics, mitigating false information on social networks, to creating informal technical networks that can work together when political forces fail to do so. Do the recent outbreaks of Ebola virus disease, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and yellow fever reflect this changing context of disruptions requiring dynamic responses? These outbreaks show that countries are at various stages of preparedness, and many have underdeveloped preparedness plans and response capabilities with weak or non-existent strategies to mitigate disruptive factors.6, 7 Many countries face severe difficulties in providing universal health coverage, for example, and might overlook timely investments for threats that demand greater health-care facility or workforce requirements.8, 9 Other challenges include shifts in within-country and between-country cooperation, the evolving need for transdisciplinary, cross-sectoral approaches and social participation,2, 3, 8, 9 and effective leadership, coordination, and financing of local national and international partners. 10 Against this backdrop, the Lancet Infectious Diseases Commission on Preparedness for Emerging Epidemic Threats was formed in mid-2019 to examine the importance of this new ecology and its disruptive factors that have resulted in an underprepared world, whether current planning assumptions still hold, and what mitigation measures need to be introduced. A sample of the new ecology, its disruptive factors, and how they manifest are shown in the table . Preparedness plans must take these factors into account to succeed and those that do not will not have the resilience and capability to fully respond. These factors are political and institutional factors that include influential stakeholders and decision-making forces; social factors that link individuals and communities, through exchange of goods and information, and building relationships that ensure societal cohesiveness; environmental factors that influence pathogens and hosts, contribute to biodiversity and how diseases emerge and spread, these factors affect interaction between humans, vertebrate animals, and arthropod vectors, and influence human development and health systems; and pathogenic factors that define the biological basis of epidemic emergence and antimicrobial resistance, host–pathogen interactions, and available interventions to address these epidemics. Table Examples of disruptive factors and their manifestations that require mitigation for effective preparedness Disruptive factors Examples of manifestations Political and institutional National governments; international agencies; non-governmental organisations and charities; corporate entities; academic institutions Weakness in behavioural change guidance from national and international organisations; scarcity of sustainable leadership and financing in failed states leading to neglected or uncoordinated health systems; increasing duration and frequency of insecurity or conflict zones hindering efforts to recognise and respond to health threats; failure of countries to report disease outbreaks because of fear of economic consequences Social Travel patterns, migration, and interconnectivity; trade; technology and digital revolution, including those that affect human interaction; expansion and control of information; patterns of communication including social media; expectations and definition of expertise; social conflict and privacy Failure of host countries to protect the health of refugees and migrants; epidemic of devastating rumours and fake news on social media due to increased digital connectivity; emergence of social influencers exerting influence on politicians and institutions; increased resistance and hesitancy within communities to health interventions because of opposition by local experts Environment Geography affecting biological diversity; planned and unplanned urbanisation; climate change; interaction between humans, animals, and vectors; human development; state of the economy; state of health systems Climate change resulting in increased flooding with failed sanitation and safe water; altered distribution of zoonotic disease reservoirs and vectors; emerging zoonosis with increased agricultural production and human encroachment into animal environments; changing national priorities resulting in sharply reduced investment in health systems Pathogenesis Changing disease biomes; relationship between hosts and pathogens; pathogen evolution and changes; technologies such as synthetic biology, and the risks of manufacturing pathogens and their accidental or deliberate release; characteristics of a population such as underlying disease condition Increased opportunities for mutation or reassortment of infectious agents; increasingly reduced effectiveness of conventional vaccines and therapeutics for prevention and treatment of diseases; failure of conventional control measures to break the chain of transmission of infectious agents The Lancet Infectious Diseases Commission will discuss disruptive factors and how preparedness planning must consider this new ecology by exploring current preparedness platforms and their vulnerability to disruptive factors; by addressing key disruptions, identifying possible solutions, and providing recommendations for countries to strengthen preparedness; by developing a multidisciplinary approach including a strong role for social sciences and innovative technology; by challenging leaders and stakeholders to create sustainable preparedness platforms through collaborations and investment in established and novel recommendations; and by creating a community of practice to share new ideas and monitor outcomes. To tackle the wide-ranging issues, the Commission has brought together experts from academic, public health, policy making, international, non-governmental, and corporate institutions. They bring local and global knowledge and experience, including policy-making and field response, human and animal health (including One Health) approaches, and novel developments in communications, information technology, analytics, public health, diagnostics, and therapeutics. The Commission aims to deliver the report by 2021 and will include key recommendations for countries and international stakeholders, and monitoring indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of preparedness initiatives over time.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clin Microbiol Infect
                Clin. Microbiol. Infect
                Clinical Microbiology and Infection
                European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                1198-743X
                1469-0691
                3 September 2020
                3 September 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Ariadne Labs, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health & Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [b ]Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Republic of Korea
                [c ]Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [d ]Department of Pediatrics, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Republic of Korea
                [e ]Department of Laboratory Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Republic of Korea
                [f ]Infection Control Office, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Republic of Korea
                [g ]Center for Preventive and Public Health, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
                [h ]Gyeonggi Infectious Disease Control Center, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
                [i ]Ansung Hospital, Gyeonggi Provincial Medical Center, Ansung, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82, Gumi-ro 173 Beongil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Republic of Korea. 463-707. Tel.: +82 31-787-7016; fax: +82 31-787-4052.
                [1]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                S1198-743X(20)30515-2
                10.1016/j.cmi.2020.08.032
                7470819
                60095ecb-d01e-47f8-bf60-83e6e731e6aa
                © 2020 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 2 June 2020
                : 17 August 2020
                : 22 August 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Microbiology & Virology
                academic medical centers,pandemic,preparedness
                Microbiology & Virology
                academic medical centers, pandemic, preparedness

                Comments

                Comment on this article