PURPOSE: To gain a rich understanding of the experiences and opinions of patients, healthcare professionals, and policymakers regarding the design of OGR with structure, process, environment, and outcome components.METHODS: Qualitative research based on the constructive grounded theory approach is performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who received OGR ( n = 13), two focus groups with healthcare professionals ( n = 13), and one focus group with policymakers ( n = 4). The Post-acute Care Rehabilitation quality framework was used as a theoretical background in all research steps. RESULTS: The data analysis of all perspectives resulted in seven themes: the outcome of OGR focuses on the patient's independence and regaining control over their functioning at home. Essential process elements are a patient-oriented network, a well-coordinated dedicated team at home, and blended eHealth applications. Additionally, closer cooperation in integrated care and refinement regarding financial, time-management, and technological challenges is needed with implementation into a permanent structure. All steps should be influenced by the stimulating aspect of the physical and social rehabilitation environment.CONCLUSION: The three perspectives generally complement each other to regain patients' quality of life and autonomy. This study demonstrates an overview of the building blocks that can be used in developing and designing an OGR trajectory.
MULTIFILE
Background: Although diagnosing and treating malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight are recommended to be embedded and sustained within nutritional care, it is unknown if that is facilitated in geriatric rehabilitation. This study determined the proportion of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions as part of routine clinical care and if these patients have greater improvements in body weight and composition compared to patients not receiving dietetic interventions.Methods: Geriatric rehabilitation inpatients from the observational REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) cohort were included (n=971, median age 83.2 [77.7-88.8] years, 58.5% (n=568) females). Malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight were defined by the Global Leadership Initiative of Malnutrition, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 and age-specific body mass index cut-offs. Data on dietetic interventions initiated by dietitians as part of clinical care was extracted from the centralised hospital database. Changes in body weight (kg), skeletal muscle mass (kg, %), and fat mass (kg, %) from admission to discharge were determined using linear mixed models.Results: Dietetic interventions were received by 306 (62.0%), 138 (71.5%) and 153 (76.9%) of patients with malnutrition (n=493), sarcopenia (n=193) and underweight (n=199). Duration and frequency of dietetic interventions were higher in patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight compared to patients without those conditions. There were no differences in body weight/composition changes in patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions compared to those not receiving interventions.Conclusions: One-third of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight are not receiving dietetic interventions and therefore the referral and diagnostic process require improvements. Patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions had no greater improvements in body weight/composition compared to those who did not receive interventions. Tailoring dietetic interventions for malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight diagnosis may improve patient outcomes.
MULTIFILE
Background: Geriatric rehabilitation positively influences health outcomes in older adults after acute events. Integrating mobile health (mHealth) technologies with geriatric rehabilitation may further improve outcomes by increasing therapy time and independence, potentially enhancing functional recovery. Previous reviews have highlighted positive outcomes but also the need for further investigation of populations receiving geriatric rehabilitation. Objective: Our main objective was to assess the effects of mHealth applications on the health status of older adults after acute events. A secondary objective was to examine the structure and process elements reported in these studies. Methods: Systematic review, including studies from 2010 to January 2024. Studies were eligible if they involved older adults’ post-acute care and used mHealth interventions, measured health outcomes and compared intervention and control groups. The adjusted Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome (SPO) framework was used to present reported intervention processes and structures. Results: After initial and secondary screenings of the literature, a total of nine studies reporting 26 health outcomes were included. mHealth interventions ranged from mobile apps to wearables to web platforms. While most outcomes showed improvement in both the intervention and control groups, a majority favored the intervention groups. Reporting of integration into daily practice was minimal. Conclusion: While mHealth shows positive effects on health status in geriatric rehabilitation, the variability in outcomes and methodologies among studies, along with a generally high risk of bias, suggest cautious interpretation. Standardized measurement approaches and co-created interventions are needed to enhance successful uptake into blended care and keep geriatric rehabilitation accessible and affordable.
