As chronic illness is common among older people, self-care practices for older people are needed to control health status, to prevent possible complications and to ensure optimal quality of life. The literature has demonstrated that integrated care approaches are one key success factor for delivering person-centered and sustainable care for older people, with rehabilitation being a cornerstone in tertiary care prevention for older citizens. The current paper addresses the state of the literature for person-centered geriatric rehabilitation (GR) and the importance of personalized and participatory goal setting. In accordance with the bio–psycho–social model of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), social participation and the related goals are of particular importance for the entire rehabilitation process. The social participation of individuals enrolled into GR is therefore one of the milestones to be achieved during GR. Personalized goal setting during the entire rehabilitation process, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and shared decision making allow a comprehensive care approach separate from solely function-based rehabilitation. The review also focusses on recent developments in digitalization in healthcare and delivers insights into how healthcare professionals’ collaborative practice supports sustainable rehabilitation results in patients of advanced chronological age.

Objective: Austria's rehabilitation system lacked personalisation, alignment with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), and measurable quality indicators. To address these gaps, a unified change management approach aligned with international standards and the biopsychosocial model was developed. The resulting Comprehensive Framework for Rehabilitation Standards, Practices, and Services aimed to establish a patient-centred, evidence-informed model integrating policy, quality, and practice. Local context: Rehabilitation in Austria is provided by social insurance institutions, including the Pension Insurance Austria, which defines medical and therapeutic specifications for rehabilitation services. Historically, these were disease-centred, heterogeneous, and lacked individualisation. Methods: The development followed a co-creation process involving focus groups with interdisciplinary staff from rehabilitation centres. Implementation in 17 centres across Austria required process and information technology adaptations as well as capacity building. Thirteen key performance indicators were established for monitoring, evaluation, and benchmarking. Results: After three quarters of implementation, all centres adhered to six key performance indicators, including staff and patient satisfaction, functional status assessment, quality of life screening, work-related rehabilitation needs, and follow-up rehabilitation referrals. Challenges included consistent ICF application, individual goal-setting, and therapy planning tailored to impairment severity. Implementation problems mirrored those reported internationally. Strong leadership, interdisciplinary collaboration, and early information technology engagement were key enablers. Conclusion: The framework operationalised international rehabilitation standards into a scalable national model. Its ICF-based design demonstrated that large-scale, patient-centred, participation-oriented rehabilitation is achievable through structured change management. Future evaluations should assess long-term outcomes and adaptability across health systems with varying digital maturity.

Purpose Geriatric rehabilitation (GR) is a key component of integrated care for older adults. This study aims to outline the current state of GR 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 centres, but no service is currently available for specific GR. All three countries use different standardised 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 on GR are largely adopted, with country variations. In order to ensure the evidence-based long-term effectiveness, quality and sustainability, there is a need for standardised quality criteria and innovative models. Such models will facilitate the identification of best practices grounded in robust evidence and focused on optimising care. In light of these considerations, further research in this field is needed.

Background: Geriatric care requires coordinated, interprofessional and person-centered approaches; however, geriatric competencies among healthcare professionals (HCP) vary considerably across Europe, and only limited data are available for the DACH (D: Deutschland, Germany; A: Austria; CH: Confoederatio Helvetica, Switzerland) region. Objectives: To investigate self-perceived knowledge, relevance and interest regarding key geriatric topics and skills among HCPs in the DACH region and to compare findings with other European countries. Material and methods: Secondary data analyses of the PROGRAMMING COST Action 21122 online survey. The DACH responses ( n = 291) were compared with those from other European countries ( n = 5134) and 33 geriatric topics and skills were analyzed to identify educational priorities. Results: The HCPs working in the DACH region rated their perceived geriatric knowledge higher than HCPs working in other European countries. Nevertheless, substantial perceived knowledge gaps remained, particularly in the areas of dementia, depression, chronic pain, cognitive screening and sarcopenia. Perceived relevance and interest in further education exceeded self-assessed knowledge levels. In contrast, topics such as oncogeriatrics, gerodontology and geriatric emergency care were assigned lower priority. Conclusion: Despite overall high self-perceived competence, important gaps persist, especially in complex, interdisciplinary areas. Continuing education needs appear to be strongly influenced by clinical practice and system structures. Given the large number of medical doctors in our data, some implications are intraprofessional; nevertheless, targeted competency-based cross-professional educational initiatives and frameworks are needed to strengthen geriatric care and support workforce mobility across Europe.