EuGMS survey on structures of geriatric rehabilitation across Europe

Stefan Grund*, Janneke P. van Wijngaarden, Adam L. Gordon, Jos M. G. A. Schols, Juergen M. Bauer

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

13 Citations (Web of Science)

Abstract

Key summary pointsAim The aim of this study is to provide an overview on structures of geriatric rehabilitation across Europe. Findings We observed major differences among EuGMS member countries with regard to the availability of geriatric rehabilitation and how it was organized. Despite various barriers in most countries, future improvement in geriatric rehabilitation services is anticipated. Message Work now needs to focus on establishing a consensus on what geriatric rehabilitation should look like to further geriatric rehabilitation services in all European countries.

Purpose Geriatric rehabilitation provides effective multidisciplinary treatment for older people who show symptoms of relevant and potentially reversible functional decline. The aim of this study is to provide an overview on structures of geriatric rehabilitation across Europe. Methods All European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) Full board members, each representing one member state of the society, were asked to complete an online questionnaire about the current structure of geriatric rehabilitation in their country. Results Thirty-one out of 33 EuGMS Full Board members participated in this questionnaire. Geriatric rehabilitation was officially recognized in 65% (20/31) of participating countries while 29% (9/31) had no geriatric rehabilitation services in their country. In countries with geriatric rehabilitation, the number of available beds varied widely (0-70/100,000 inhabitants). Average length of stay varied from 7 to 65 days. The estimated mean age of the patients in geriatric rehabilitation was 80 years, with most patients being older than 70 years. Six countries had no specified lower age limit and no country had an upper age limit. 42% (13/31) of countries reported having national or local guidelines and 35% (11/31) had a benchmarking or audit system established. Most participants responded positively about the prospects for improvement in the field. Conclusion We observed major differences among EuGMS member countries with regard to the availability of geriatric rehabilitation and how it was organized. Despite various barriers in most countries, future improvement in geriatric rehabilitation services is anticipated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)217-232
Number of pages16
JournalEuropean Geriatric Medicine
Volume11
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2020

Keywords

  • Geriatric rehabilitation
  • Structure of supply
  • EuGMS
  • European consensus
  • DEMENTIA

Cite this