AI Article Synopsis

Article Abstract

Background: The rejection of an application for ambulant geriatric rehabilitation (AGRV) is usually justified by the argument that non-pharmaceutical therapy prescribed by doctors accredited by social housing institutions (SHI) would suffice. The reality in healthcare during the 6 months following an application is unknown.

Methods: In this study 203 patients who had made an application for AGRV in the second half of 2010 in Flensburg, Lübeck or Ratzeburg were interviewed by telephone.

Results: The survey revealed that 25.7% of the applications for AGRV had been rejected. The majority of these patients received no ambulant non-pharmaceutical therapy (e.g. physical therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy or psychological therapy), less than 20% received more than 12 therapy sessions and in most cases exclusively physiotherapy. The 141 successful AGRV applicants received additional ambulant therapies of a similar magnitude.

Conclusion: The difference between the intensified interdisciplinary therapy offered in the AGRV and additionally and the offer to rejected applicants is substantial.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00391-014-0818-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

non-pharmaceutical therapy
12
therapy
9
geriatric rehabilitation
8
therapy prescribed
8
agrv
5
[non-pharmaceutical therapy
4
therapy candidates
4
candidates geriatric
4
rehabilitation non-pharmaceutical
4
prescribed shi-accredited
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!