Geriatric rehabilitation in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region): a current state analysis.
Publisher DOI
PubMed ID
41904775
Abstract
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.
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.
Date Issued
2026-06
Publication Type
Article
Subject(s)
Subjects
Comprehensive geriatric assessment
•
Geriatric rehabilitation
•
ICF
•
Integrated care pathway
•
Older person
Language(s)
en
Author(s)
Skoumal, M | |
Grund, S | |
Benzinger, P | |
Goetz, S M | |
Dorner, T E | |
Iglseder, B | |
Pertinatsch, C | |
Neubacher, B | |
Kadane, C | |
Lindner-Rabl, S | |
Roller-Wirnsberger, R |
Additional Credits
Journal
European Geriatric Medicine
Publisher
Springer
ISSN
1878-7649
1878-7649
Access(Rights)
open.access