Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Geriatric rehabilitation (GR) is a key component of integrated care for older adults. This study aims to outline the current state of geriatric rehabilitation in the DACH region, highlighting national differences, comparing structural frameworks, and assessing the implementation of the European consensus statement and WHO recommendations.</p> Methods <p>An online survey was conducted within a working group of GR experts from the three countries, officially nominated by the national geriatric societies. The questionnaire was developed based on a search of recent literature on the GR process and supplemented by desktop research on country-specific care structures based on the European Consensus Statement on GR.</p> Results <p>The most significant structural difference relates to Austria, where phase 2 rehabilitation for older patients is offered only in disease-oriented centers, but no service is currently available for specific GR. All three countries use different standardized admission assessments, therapy minutes and country-specific geriatric qualifications. Digital health solutions and mobile/home-based GR are still in development.</p> Conclusion <p>The recommendations of the European Consensus Statement are largely adopted, with country variations. In order to ensure the evidence-based long-term effectiveness, quality and sustainability of GR, there is a need for standardized quality criteria and innovative models. Such models will facilitate the identification of best practices grounded in robust evidence and focused on optimizing care. In light of these considerations, further research in this field is needed.</p> <p>Key Summary Points.</p> Aim <p>This article aims to present the current state of GR in the DACH region, in order to detect differences, compare the national structures and to show the extent to which the European Consensus Statement and WHO recommendations have been implemented.</p> Findings <p>The most significant structural differences relate to the absence of specific phase 2 GR in Austria, different standardized admission assessments, therapy minutes and country-specific geriatric qualifications. Mobile/home-based GR as well as digital health solutions are still in development.</p> Message <p>Future considerations for GR should include the development of standardized quality criteria and the integration of innovative models, particularly in mobile and home-based settings, to ensure long-term effectiveness, evidence-based quality, and sustainability.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Geriatric rehabilitation in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region): a current state analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月29日

查看全文
  • M. Skoumal,
  • M. Honegger,
  • S. Grund,
  • P. Benzinger,
  • S. Bachmann,
  • T. Münzer,
  • S. M. Goetz,
  • T. E. Dorner,
  • B. Iglseder,
  • C. Pertinatsch,
  • B. Neubacher,
  • C. Kadane,
  • S. Lindner-Rabl,
  • R. Roller-Wirnsberger

摘要

Purpose

Geriatric rehabilitation (GR) is a key component of integrated care for older adults. This study aims to outline the current state of geriatric rehabilitation in the DACH region, highlighting national differences, comparing structural frameworks, and assessing the implementation of the European consensus statement and WHO recommendations.

Methods

An online survey was conducted within a working group of GR experts from the three countries, officially nominated by the national geriatric societies. The questionnaire was developed based on a search of recent literature on the GR process and supplemented by desktop research on country-specific care structures based on the European Consensus Statement on GR.

Results

The most significant structural difference relates to Austria, where phase 2 rehabilitation for older patients is offered only in disease-oriented centers, but no service is currently available for specific GR. All three countries use different standardized admission assessments, therapy minutes and country-specific geriatric qualifications. Digital health solutions and mobile/home-based GR are still in development.

Conclusion

The recommendations of the European Consensus Statement are largely adopted, with country variations. In order to ensure the evidence-based long-term effectiveness, quality and sustainability of GR, there is a need for standardized quality criteria and innovative models. Such models will facilitate the identification of best practices grounded in robust evidence and focused on optimizing care. In light of these considerations, further research in this field is needed.

Key Summary Points.

Aim

This article aims to present the current state of GR in the DACH region, in order to detect differences, compare the national structures and to show the extent to which the European Consensus Statement and WHO recommendations have been implemented.

Findings

The most significant structural differences relate to the absence of specific phase 2 GR in Austria, different standardized admission assessments, therapy minutes and country-specific geriatric qualifications. Mobile/home-based GR as well as digital health solutions are still in development.

Message

Future considerations for GR should include the development of standardized quality criteria and the integration of innovative models, particularly in mobile and home-based settings, to ensure long-term effectiveness, evidence-based quality, and sustainability.