Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Centers (RCCs)—a Korean government initiative—seek to reduce medical gaps across regions, and their cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs are expected to model post-acute care for the Korean CR program. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate the current status of CR programs in the RCCs. We distributed surveys on the CR condition, activity, and barriers to 12 RCCs in different provinces. The results revealed significant gaps in the annual number of acute myocardial infarction admissions, and CR candidates, capacity, and density across the 12 RCCs. The CR capacity (50–500) and density (0.42–7.36) indicated particularly large gaps. Twelve RCCs had the necessary facilities, equipment and personnel for CR assessments and management, with high CR referral (97%) and patient education (78%) rates. However, the inpatient CR exercise training (56%) participation rate was inadequate, with much lower enrollment (47%) and adherence (17%) rates to the outpatient CR program and large differences across centers. Therefore, this study’s results will provide the evidence required to establish special national health strategies to overcome the CR barriers of patient, doctor/hospital, and policy factors for activating Korean CR programs.

The percentage of patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation programs (CRP) is very low (30–40%), and hospitals providing CRP are either insufficient or lacking, even in countries with advanced medical care; therefore, this study aims to investigate the barriers, as well as compare the differences between hospitals, with or without CRP. We conducted a survey, in which the questionnaire was distributed through post or email to 607 specialists who work at 164 hospitals performing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). The results were as follows: (1) of the 164 hospitals, 132 responded (response rate: 80.5%). While all 47 hospitals with CRP responded (100%), from among the 117 hospitals without CRP, 85 responded (72.7%). (2) Of the 607 specialists, 227 responded (response rate: 36.9%). The response rates according to specialties were as follows: cardiologists (28.9%), cardiac surgeons (24.5%), and physiatrists (64.1%). (3) While the specialists at hospitals with CRP identified patient referral, transportation, and cost as the major barriers, for those at hospitals without CRP, all items were considered barriers, especially the items related to equipment, space, workforce, and budget as being more serious barriers. Therefore, in order to actively promote CRP, it is suggested that governments consider the customized support system according to the performance of CRPs.

Kim C, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2022 Apr;37(14):e109. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2022.37.e109

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an essential component in secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Current guidelines recommend that the program should be comprehensive including multidisciplinary behavioral intervention, not only exercise training. While the utilization of CR is gradually increasing, the comprehensiveness of the program has not been systemically evaluated in Korea. Methods: During the year 2020, nation-wide survey was done to evaluate the current status of CR in Korea. Survey was done by web-based structured questionnaire. Survey was requested to 164 hospitals performing percutaneous coronary intervention. Results: Among 164 hospitals, 47 (28.7%) hospitals had CR programs. In hospitals with CR, multidisciplinary intervention other than exercise-based program was provided only partially: nutritional counseling (63%), vocational counseling for return to work (39%), stress management (31%), psychological evaluation (18%). Personnel for CR was commonly not dedicated to the program or even absent: (percentage of dedicated, concurrent with other work, absent) physical therapist (59, 41, 0%), nurse (31, 69, 0%), dietician (6, 65, 29%), clinical psychologist (0, 37, 63%). Conclusion: Comprehensiveness of CR in Korea is suboptimal and human resource for it is poorly disposed. More awareness of current status by both clinicians and health policy makers is needed and insurance reimbursement for educational program should be improved.