Up to 2.2 million people experiencing disability suffer collateral damage each day of COVID-19 lockdown in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is having a great impact on health services. Patients not receiving care due to closure of outpatient services suffer a collateral damage. Our aim was to provide first data on impact of COVID-19 on people experiencing disability in Europe. METHODS: We developed an estimation from a survey and publicly available data. Thirty-eight countries have been inquired through the European Bodies of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine - the rehabilitation medical specialty. The nine questions of the survey focused on March 31st, 2020. We used the following indicators: for inpatients, acute and rehabilitative hospital beds; for outpatients, missing uniform European data, we used information from Italy, Belgium and the UK, and estimated for Europe basing on population, number of rehabilitation physicians, physiotherapists, and people with self-reported limitations. RESULTS: Thirty-five countries (92%) including 99% of the population (809.9 million) answered. Stop of admissions to rehabilitation, early discharge and reduction of activities involved 194,800 inpatients in 10 countries. Outpatient activities stopped for 87%, involving 318,000 patients per day in Italy, Belgium and the UK, leading to an estimate range of 1.3-2.2 million in Europe. Seven countries reported experiences on rehabilitation for acute COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 emergency is having a huge impact on rehabilitation of people experiencing disability. This may lead to future cumulative effects due to reduced functional outcome and consequent increased burden of care. When the emergency will fade, rehabilitation demand will probably grow due to an expected return wave of these not well treated patients, but probably also of post-COVID-19 patients' needs.

International Comparison of Vocational Rehabilitation for Persons With Spinal Cord Injury: Systems, Practices, and Barriers.

Background: Employment rates among people with spinal cord injury or spinal cord disease (SCI/D) show considerable variation across countries. One factor to explain this variation is differences in vocational rehabilitation (VR) systems. International comparative studies on VR however are nonexistent. Objectives: To describe and compare VR systems and practices and barriers for return to work in the rehabilitation of persons with SCI/D in multiple countries. Methods: A survey including clinical case examples was developed and completed by medical and VR experts from SCI/D rehabilitation centers in seven countries between April and August 2017. Results: Location (rehabilitation center vs community), timing (around admission, toward discharge, or after discharge from clinical rehabilitation), and funding (eg, insurance, rehabilitation center, employer, or community) of VR practices differ. Social security services vary greatly. The age and preinjury occupation of the patient influences the content of VR in some countries. Barriers encountered during VR were similar. No participant mentioned lack of interest in VR among team members as a barrier, but all mentioned lack of education of the team on VR as a barrier. Other frequently mentioned barriers were fatigue of the patient (86%), lack of confidence of the patient in his/her ability to work (86%), a gap in the team's knowledge of business/legal aspects (86%), and inadequate transportation/accessibility (86%). Conclusion: VR systems and practices, but not barriers, differ among centers. The variability in VR systems and social security services should be considered when comparing VR study results.

Specifying clinical assessment schedules for the European framework of rehabilitation service types: the perspective of the physical and rehabilitation medicine Section and Board of the European Union of Medical Specialists.

INTRODUCTION: In light of global mandates and in recognition of the value of data collection and reporting based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), the UEMS PRM Section and Board established an action plan to implement the ICF in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, rehabilitation and health care at large. This includes, among other steps, the development of a framework of rehabilitation service types for Europe (European Framework) and corresponding clinical assessment schedules (CLASs) for each service type. A CLAS encompasses the recommendation for what aspects of functioning to document, for whom and when, and the data collection tools to use. The objective of this paper is to report on the development of the CLASs for the European Framework developed in Stockholm in 2018, with focus on what to document. METHODS: Involving UEMS PRM delegates across European regions, a multistage Delphi process comprised the development of an initial proposal of the CLASs (i.e. default and optional ICF Sets to document), two feedback (pre- and post-Stockholm) rounds via e-mail, and a deliberation by the UEMS PRM during its March 2019 meeting in Budapest. In both Delphi rounds, participants were asked whether the initially proposed default and optional ICF Sets represent what is currently documented at an exemplary service provider in the country or in consideration of their own expertise. The European Framework was revised between the two Delphi rounds, requiring a revision of the CLAS proposal accordingly. Participants were additionally asked whether they support the suggested ICF Sets as the specification of the CLAS. Level of support (strong = ≥80%, moderate = between 80-60%, weak =≤59%) was calculated as the percentage of countries supporting the suggested CLAS over the number of responding countries. The results of the post-Stockholm round were presented for discussion, revision and approval at the Budapest meeting. RESULTS: Pre-Stockholm Delphi round: due to low response rate only a summary of comments made by the responding countries was provided as reference information for the post-Stockholm round. Post-Stockholm Delphi round: results indicated moderate to strong support for the proposed CLASs. Deliberation Budapest Meeting - Motions for specific revisions to the CLASs based on the results of the Post-Stockholm round were predominately accepted. With additional minor revisions, the UEMS PRM General Assembly approved a version of the CLASs for the European Framework. CONCLUSIONS: To kick-off the implementation of these CLASs, UEMS PRM plans demonstration projects in at least one rehabilitation facility in each delegate country that exemplifies the rehabilitation service types of the European Framework which exist in the respective country. The demonstration projects are intended to orient service providers and clinicians to the CLASs and illustrate how the CLASs can be implemented.

[Cochrane and World Health Organization "Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action".] / Cochrane e "Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action" dell'Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization (WHO) has launched in February 2017 "Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action". This is likely to have a deep impact in the Health Systems in the next few years. The new Cochrane Rehabilitation Field has been invited by WHO as a relevant stakeholder in this effort. WHO recognizes the dramatic changes in health and demographic profiles of populations that are characterizing the 21st century. Main goals of WHO are to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages, and to promote healthy life expectancy. METHODS: Health systems and health policies are placing increased emphasis on services targeted at improving functioning, and not only at decreasing morbidity and mortality. According to WHO, rehabilitation could be an answer to this need. Cochrane's strategy becomes significant in this context, as it is based on the production of high-quality evidence through systematic reviews to inform health decision making. RESULTS: Cochrane Rehabilitation is the appropriate instrument in this endeavour: its main goal is to convey to all rehabilitation professionals the best available evidence, but also to improve the Cochrane methods for evidence synthesis. This will help rehabilitation professionals to make decisions according to the best and most appropriate evidence. CONCLUSION: An important challenge of Cochrane Rehabilitation in the next future is to respond to the WHO "Rehabilitation 2030" call for action.

A position paper on Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine programmes in post-acute settings. Union of European Medical Specialists Section of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine (in conjunction with the European Society of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine).

Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) programmes in post-acute settings cover interventions for the rehabilitation of people with a variety of disabling health conditions. The setting of the intervention is more important than the timing and these programmes can be carried out in a variety of facilities. This paper describes the role of PRM services and of PRM specialists in delivering rehabilitation programmes to people, who have initially been admitted to hospital. The emphasis is on improving patients' activities and addressing participation issues. PRM programmes in post-acute settings provide a range of treatments and have a major influence in the long-term on the pace and extent of return of function and recovery from ill-health. This paper will define the meaning of post-acute settings and will describe the patient's journey through the post-acute setting. In particular, it addresses the standards of care across Europe that patients should expect. This paper also examines the general principles of funding such programmes within the context of different health care systems across Europe. Coordinated care improves outcomes and economic profiles for both payers and providers of services. This paper describes the value of PRM interventions and PRM specialist-led teams in promoting better outcomes for people with disabilities with complex needs.