Intermediate care (IC) is expanding, but services may differ in organization, care goals, and clinical capability. To describe the profiles of three inpatient IC service models in Italy. An electronic facility-level survey promoted by the Italian Society of Gerontology and Geriatrics (SIGG) and distributed through its intermediate care professional network assessed admissions, stability criteria, care goals, length of stay, workforce, and diagnostic support in rehabilitation and functional recovery IC units (RFR-IC), Community Hospitals (CH), and subacute units. Fifty-eight facilities participated: 29 RFR-IC units, 14 CH, and 15 subacute units. Admission from acute hospital wards was reported by 94.8% of facilities. Direct admission from home was reported more frequently by RFR-IC and CH than by subacute units (79.3%, 78.6%, and 26.7%; p = 0.002). Clinical stability was commonly assessed without a formal tool (58.6%). RFR-IC emphasized rehabilitation, longer stays, and allied-health involvement; subacute units had greater diagnostic access. Services showed distinct access routes, objectives, staffing, and diagnostic capacity, potentially affecting patient selection, safety, and outcome interpretation. These exploratory, non-representative findings identify candidate domains for standardized reporting in future mapping and benchmarking, including admissions, clinical stability, care goals, workforce, diagnostic and escalation pathways, home-care integration, and patient-level outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Presta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: