From Hospital Bed to Functional Recovery: Why Preventing and Addressing Hospitalization-Associated Disability Matters for Older People in Viet Nam
INTEGRATED CARE & CARE TRANSITIONSAGE-FRIENDLY CARE QUALITY
From Hospital Bed to Functional Recovery: Why Preventing and Addressing Hospitalization-Associated Disability Matters for Older People in Viet Nam
INTEGRATED CARE & CARE TRANSITIONS, AGE-FRIENDLY CARE QUALITY
Last reviewed: October 2026
An older person may enter hospital walking independently, using the toilet without help and preparing simple meals at home. Several days later, the pneumonia or heart failure that brought them to hospital may be clinically better: treatment has worked, their condition is stable and discharge is medically appropriate. Yet when it is time to go home, the same person may need help getting out of bed, walking to the bathroom or dressing.
The acute illness has improved, but the person has not returned to where they were before admission. For older people, that difference matters. Being “medically stable” is not always the same as being functionally ready to resume everyday life. Even a relatively modest loss of mobility or independence can determine whether someone returns home safely, needs substantially more family support, requires rehabilitation or begins a longer trajectory toward care dependency.
This problem is described in the literature as hospitalization-associated disability, or HAD. It deserves attention not simply as a rehabilitation issue, but as a question of healthcare quality, patient safety and continuity across the care journey.
Hospitalization-associated disability is about loss of independence
Hospitalization-associated disability is commonly defined as a new loss of independence in activities of daily living following an acute hospitalization. Depending on the study, it may be measured at discharge or shortly afterward and compared with a pre-admission functional baseline. Commonly assessed activities include bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring and eating. Studies use different instruments, baseline periods and thresholds, which is one reason prevalence estimates vary substantially.
The word associated is important. HAD does not mean that the hospital itself necessarily caused all of the decline. Older people are hospitalized because they are acutely ill, and illness can directly affect strength, cognition, appetite, endurance and mobility. People who already live with frailty or functional limitations may also have less physiological reserve to absorb that stress.
At the same time, what happens during hospitalization can compound the effects of illness. Immobility, delirium, poor nutritional intake, disrupted sleep, medication effects, pain, restrictive routines and fewer opportunities to perform normal daily activities may all contribute to functional decline. HAD is therefore better understood as the result of an interaction among acute illness, pre-existing vulnerability and what happens during and after hospitalization, rather than simply “deconditioning from lying in bed.”
HAD is also not synonymous with frailty. Frailty describes increased vulnerability to stressors; HAD describes functional decline associated with an episode of hospitalization. Frailty can increase the risk of HAD, but the concepts are not interchangeable.
Recent evidence suggests HAD is common, but highly variable
The most recent systematic review and meta-analysis, published in Age and Ageing in September 2026, included 46 studies involving 439,406 older adults from 15 regions. Individual studies reported HAD prevalence ranging from 5% to 57%, while the pooled prevalence was 27%, with a 95% confidence interval of 24%–31%. Importantly, the 95% prediction interval was much wider, at 7%–48%, reflecting substantial variation among populations, settings, study designs and assessment methods.
The correct interpretation is therefore not that 27% of all older people admitted to hospital will develop disability. The evidence is too heterogeneous for that conclusion. What it does show is that new functional dependency after hospitalization is common enough to merit routine attention.
The review also reinforces a basic measurement principle: clinicians need to understand the person’s pre-admission functional baseline. If no one knows what an older person could do before the acute illness, it becomes difficult to determine how much function has actually been lost.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis identified frailty, poor physical function, immobility and delirium among the confirmed risk factors for HAD. A separate 2026 review identified 18 prediction models from 16 studies; age, cognition, instrumental activities of daily living and nutritional status were among the most frequent predictors. However, all included prediction-model studies were judged to have low quality or high risk of bias, and the authors identified important limitations in validation and clinical applicability.
For healthcare organizations, the practical lesson is not that one more prediction score is immediately needed. Routinely establishing function, mobility, frailty, cognition and nutritional status may currently be more actionable than relying heavily on a predictive model that has not been adequately validated for the local population.
Function should be treated as an outcome of hospitalization
Hospitals naturally focus on disease: pneumonia is assessed through infection and respiratory status, heart failure through congestion and cardiovascular stability, and fractures through orthopedic treatment. These priorities are necessary, but for an older person another outcome matters as well:
What can I do now compared with what I could do before I became ill?
That question can easily be overlooked because function does not fit neatly into one laboratory value or diagnostic code. An older person may have improving test results while losing the ability to stand from a chair. Another may have completed treatment for infection but developed delirium, stopped walking independently and begun needing help with toileting.
If function is not understood early in the admission, these changes can become invisible. By discharge, staff may see the person’s current dependency without realizing that it is new.
A functional baseline does not need to become an elaborate assessment for every patient. At minimum, the care team should understand the person’s usual mobility and level of independence in key activities before the acute illness. For people at greater risk, a more structured assessment may be appropriate.
This changes the discharge conversation from simply asking “Is the disease stable enough for discharge?” to asking “Is the person recovering toward their previous level of function, and if not, what needs to happen next?”
Preserving function requires more than physical therapy
When functional decline is recognized, the immediate response is often to refer the person for rehabilitation or physical therapy. Rehabilitation is important, but HAD is a multidomain problem.
A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 2,202 hospitalized older patients identified seven recurring elements in multicomponent interventions: physical activity, nutritional support, cognitive stimulation, delirium management, fall prevention, depression management and social interaction. The review found potential functional benefits, while emphasizing that the certainty of the current evidence remains limited and does not establish one universal intervention package.
This makes clinical sense. Asking an older person to walk more will achieve little if they are delirious, severely undernourished, excessively sedated, hypotensive, in uncontrolled pain or too frightened to move. Conversely, nutritional support alone cannot preserve function if the person spends almost the entire admission in bed.
The practical objective is therefore to create a care environment in which normal function is preserved wherever clinically safe. For one person, that may mean walking to the bathroom rather than routinely using a bedpan. For another, it may mean sitting out of bed for meals, continuing activities they can safely perform themselves, practicing transfers or beginning rehabilitation early rather than waiting until discharge approaches.
A 2026 systematic review focused on “moving more and sitting less” among hospitalized older medical patients included 19 studies. Randomized evidence, although low certainty, favored these approaches for independence in activities of daily living at discharge; much of the evidence for other outcomes remained very low certainty. This supports movement as one part of the solution, but not the simplistic claim that mobilization alone prevents HAD.
The same caution applies to fall prevention. Keeping an older person in bed may seem safer in the short term, but unnecessary immobility can contribute to further loss of strength and independence. Indiscriminate mobilization can also be unsafe. The goal is safe mobility appropriate to the person’s clinical condition, supported by appropriate assistance, walking aids, pain management, medication review and consistent instructions for staff and family.
Instead of asking only, “Is this person a fall risk?”, teams may find it more useful to ask:
“How can this person move as safely and independently as possible today?”
Functional recovery does not end at discharge
Discharge and recovery do not necessarily happen on the same day. A person may no longer need acute hospital care while still being far from their previous functional level.
The 2026 review of multicomponent interventions provides a useful signal. Among the intervention patterns examined, programs that began during hospitalization and continued for three months after discharge showed the clearest improvement in activities of daily living. This does not establish one universal three-month model, but it reinforces an important point: functional recovery may need support beyond the hospital stay.
Recent geriatric-rehabilitation evidence highlights how complex this continuum remains. A 2026 systematic review of 36 studies involving 10,647 patients found substantial variation in rehabilitation models, team composition, workflows and assessment methods, with more than 90 different assessment tools reported. The authors concluded that geriatric-rehabilitation processes remain poorly standardized and called for more consistent process descriptions and measures across settings.
For an older person, the practical meaning is straightforward. Discharge planning may need to answer more than when the next medical appointment occurs. What was the person’s functional baseline? What can they do now? What remains impaired? Can they walk safely in their own home? Do they need an assistive device or rehabilitation? Can the family provide the support assumed in the discharge plan? Who will reassess progress, and what happens if recovery stalls?
A discharge summary that describes the disease but not the change in function leaves the next care team with an incomplete picture.
Families also need to understand the functional change they are taking home. A daughter may arrive to collect a parent and discover that the person now needs help standing. A spouse may be told that walking practice should continue but have little idea how much assistance is safe. A family may expect rapid recovery because the acute illness has been declared stable, only to find that weakness, fatigue or confusion continues for weeks.
Families can support recovery, but they should not be expected to substitute for professional rehabilitation or clinical follow-up simply because continuity between services is weak.
WHO’s healthy-ageing framework makes function central
WHO’s healthy-ageing framework places functional ability at the center of what matters in older age. Functional ability reflects a person’s intrinsic capacity, the environment in which they live and the interaction between the two.
This is particularly relevant after hospitalization because the meaningful outcome is not simply a score on a physical test. An older person may want to walk to a nearby shop, prepare breakfast, use the bathroom without help, return to a community activity or simply move around their own home safely.
WHO’s second edition of the Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) handbook, published in September 2025, provides a primary- and community-care pathway built around four steps: basic assessment, in-depth assessment, development of a personalized care plan, and implementation and monitoring. Its initial assessment includes losses in intrinsic capacity across cognition, mobility, vitality, vision, hearing and psychological capacity.
ICOPE is not a hospital HAD protocol and should not be presented as one. Its relevance lies around the acute episode: it offers a person-centered framework for identifying losses in capacity, understanding health and social support needs, setting meaningful goals and maintaining continuity as the person returns to primary and community care.
This is where HAD fits naturally within a broader care continuum:
hospital treatment → preservation of function → rehabilitation or transitional care → home → community follow-up → longer-term recovery and support.
Viet Nam has important building blocks for a stronger functional-recovery pathway
Viet Nam does not need to start from zero, but the policies currently in place were not designed as one unified HAD pathway.
The Program for Rehabilitation System Development 2023–2030, with a vision to 2050, approved by Decision No. 569/QĐ-TTg on 24 May 2023, aims to ensure that people who need rehabilitation can access quality, comprehensive, continuous and equitable rehabilitation services. It also strengthens rehabilitation networks and community-based rehabilitation, including services relevant to older people.
The National Strategy for Older People to 2035, approved under Decision No. 383/QĐ-TTg in February 2025, provides a more specific older-person context. For 2025–2030, it sets a target that 70% of older people with disabilities should be screened to identify forms of disability and receive intervention and rehabilitation.
Decision No. 1116/QĐ-TTg of 22 June 2026, updating the Older People Health Care Program to 2030, further strengthens the health-system context. From 2026, older people are to receive a free periodic health examination or screening at least once a year and have health-monitoring and management records established. The Decision also strengthens geriatric-service objectives and professional training across hospital, primary-care and community settings.
Most relevant after discharge, Ministry of Health Decision No. 1976/QĐ-BYT of 1 July 2026 provides professional guidance for older-person care at home and in the community. It includes ICOPE-based screening of intrinsic capacity and detailed practical guidance on safe movement, transfers and wheelchair mobility, with explicit attention to supporting independence and participation in daily activities.
Together, these policies provide relevant building blocks for a stronger functional-recovery pathway. They were not, however, designed as a single pathway for hospitalization-associated disability. The national instruments reviewed for this article do not establish a specific HAD process linking documented pre-admission function, functional monitoring during acute admission, discharge assessment and structured post-discharge recovery across settings.
That creates an implementation opportunity.
What a practical hospital-to-recovery pathway could look like
Healthcare organizations could begin with a relatively simple principle:
Know the person’s function before admission, protect it during admission, identify any new loss before discharge, and make that change visible to the next care team.
At admission, this means establishing the person’s usual mobility and independence in basic activities before the acute illness. A patient who walked independently two weeks earlier but is now unable to stand has a different recovery target from someone who was already fully dependent.
For higher-risk patients, early assessment may also consider frailty, cognition, delirium risk, nutrition and mobility. This does not require every hospital to use the same HAD risk score. The 2026 review of prediction models found moderate discrimination but important methodological limitations, inadequate validation and high risk of bias, limiting their current clinical applicability.
During hospitalization, function can become part of the daily plan. Teams can ask whether the person is getting out of bed when clinically appropriate, eating adequately, using the toilet as independently as safely possible, experiencing delirium or excessive sedation, receiving avoidable mobility restrictions and progressing toward realistic mobility goals.
This is not a recommendation to mobilize every patient regardless of medical status. Acute instability, postoperative restrictions, hemodynamic concerns and other clinical risks still matter. The objective is to reduce avoidable functional loss, not to place mobility above safe medical care.
Before discharge, the team can compare current function with the pre-admission baseline. If the person has not recovered, that gap should be treated as clinically important information. It may influence rehabilitation referral, discharge destination, equipment needs, caregiver preparation and follow-up.
The next provider should not have to rediscover that the person could walk independently before the hospitalization.
Measure recovery, then learn through focused pilots
Hospitals routinely measure mortality, length of stay, readmissions, infections and many other important outcomes. Functional status is often less visible.
A practical quality framework could begin with a small number of questions. Among older people at higher risk, was pre-admission mobility and independence documented? Was function reassessed before discharge? If new dependency was identified, was a rehabilitation or recovery plan created? Did the next care setting receive that information? Was function reassessed after discharge when appropriate?
Organizations could also examine new dependency in activities of daily living, changes in mobility, new assistive-device needs, discharge to a higher level of care and subsequent functional recovery. These are illustrative quality measures, not a proposed national HAD indicator set for Viet Nam.
Measurement also needs to be reliable. A lower reported HAD rate is not necessarily good performance if baseline function was never established and new disability therefore went undetected. The 2026 prevalence review specifically emphasizes standardized prospective assessment and the use of a pre-admission baseline.
Viet Nam could learn initially through focused pilots rather than a national HAD program. A hospital might start with one higher-risk population—such as frail medical patients or older adults admitted with lower respiratory tract infection—and document pre-admission function, establish daily mobility and function goals, integrate delirium and nutrition management, reassess before discharge and communicate new dependency to rehabilitation and community services.
A linked rehabilitation service or selected commune health stations could then follow functional recovery after discharge using a small common set of measures. The pilot could test practical questions that matter locally: Can staff reliably establish pre-admission function? Who owns functional assessment during admission? Can existing nursing and rehabilitation workflows support functional goals? Which patients need post-discharge rehabilitation? What information does the next provider actually use? Can the family safely support the plan? When should stalled recovery trigger reassessment?
International geriatric-rehabilitation pathways remain highly heterogeneous, so there is little reason for Viet Nam to copy one foreign model wholesale. Local approaches should instead be tested, measured and refined.
Recovery should be part of what it means to treat an older person successfully
For an older patient, successful hospital care is not defined only by survival, disease control or discharge. It also matters whether the person can return to the life they had before becoming ill.
Not every functional decline can be prevented. Acute illness can be severe, frailty can limit recovery and some people will leave hospital with new and lasting care needs. The realistic goal is therefore to prevent avoidable decline, recognize new disability early and support recovery when decline occurs, rather than promise that every person will return to baseline.
Viet Nam already has several important building blocks: a national rehabilitation-development program, an older-person strategy that includes disability screening and rehabilitation, expanding geriatric services, and new home- and community-care guidance that places greater attention on intrinsic capacity, mobility and individualized care.
The next step is to connect those pieces around the person.
For healthcare organizations, the most useful question at discharge may therefore not simply be, “Is this older person medically stable?” It is:
“Compared with before this illness, what can this person do now, what function has not yet recovered, and who will help that recovery continue after they leave us?”
When healthcare organizations can answer that question consistently, functional recovery becomes more than a rehabilitation concern. It becomes part of the infrastructure for safe, age-friendly and integrated older-person care.
References
World Health Organization. Integrated care for older people (ICOPE): guidance for person-centred assessment and pathways in primary care. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025.
World Health Organization. Healthy ageing and functional ability. World Health Organization.
Loyd C, Markland AD, Zhang Y, et al. Prevalence of Hospital-Associated Disability in Older Adults: A Meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2020;21(4):455–461.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2019.09.015.
Zeng L, Hou H, Ni P, Lv Y, Hu X. Prevalence and associated factors of hospitalisation-associated disability in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and Ageing. 2026;55(9):afag265. doi:10.1093/ageing/afag265.
Hao X, Zhang H, Zhao X, Peng X, Li K. Risk factors for hospitalization-associated disability among older patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews. 2024;101:102516. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2024.102516.
Zeng L, Ni P, Hou H, Liu L, Lv Y, An Y, Deng G, Hu X. Risk prediction models for hospitalization-associated disability among older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2026;146:106230. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2026.106230.
Hao X, Yang Y, Gu Y, Zhang H, Zhao X, Li K. Multicomponent Interventions for Functional Outcomes in Hospitalized Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2026;27(1):105975. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2025.105975.
Baldwin C, Lynch E, Munn Z, et al. Incorporating “moving more and sitting less” into daily activities of hospitalised older medical patients: a stakeholder-directed systematic review with meta-analysis of complex interventions. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2026;48(9):2630–2652. doi:10.1080/09638288.2025.2584961.
Skoumal M, Honegger M, Grund S, et al. Current evidence on the core components of the geriatric rehabilitation process: a systematic review. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research. Published online 15 July 2026. doi:10.1007/s40520-026-03450-z.
Welch C, Chen Y, Hartley P, et al. New horizons in hospital-associated deconditioning: a global condition of body and mind. Age and Ageing. 2024;53(11):afae241. doi:10.1093/ageing/afae241.
Prime Minister of Viet Nam. Decision No. 569/QĐ-TTg approving the Program for Rehabilitation System Development during 2023–2030, with a vision toward 2050. 24 May 2023.
Prime Minister of Viet Nam. Decision No. 383/QĐ-TTg approving the National Strategy for Older People to 2035, with a vision to 2045. 21 February 2025.
Prime Minister of Viet Nam. Decision No. 1116/QĐ-TTg amending Decision No. 1579/QĐ-TTg approving the Older People Health Care Program to 2030. 22 June 2026.
Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. Decision No. 1976/QĐ-BYT issuing professional guidance on care for older people at home and in the community. 1 July 2026.