OA20358. Rehabilitation integration in national trauma care policies: Comparative analysis of six countries

Abstract Issue Despite evidence supporting early rehabilitation integration in trauma care, systematic approaches remain inconsistent across European healthcare systems. Implementation gaps between policy frameworks and clinical practice may compromise patient outcomes and increase costs, requiring evidence-based analysis of effective integration strategies. Description This policy analysis examined rehabilitation integration across six countries (UK, Netherlands, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Ukraine) using clinical guidelines, service specifications, research studies, and registry data spanning 2013-2025, focusing on service integration, workforce development, information systems, leadership structures, and financing mechanisms. Results Integration approaches varied significantly. The UK operates the most comprehensive multilevel framework combining NICE NG211 guidelines, D15/S/a specifications, 22 regional networks with dedicated leadership, and mandatory TARN monitoring. The Netherlands demonstrated strongest economic evidence through their Transmural Trauma Care Model, achieving €875-€1,553 cost savings with 17% quality of life improvement and 23% pain reduction. Norway’s registry system enables quality improvement, though research reveals poor guideline adherence requiring intervention. Italy shows policy evolution from basic integration (2015) to intensive rehabilitation guidelines (2024). Ukraine demonstrates adaptive emergency frameworks through international cooperation. Lessons Policy frameworks are insufficient without implementation monitoring. Norway’s experience shows registries and guidelines require active intervention. Successful integration requires multilevel coordination, research validation with economic evidence, dedicated leadership, and systematic monitoring addressing policy-practice gaps. Key messages • Policy frameworks require implementation architecture: The UK’s approach combining guidelines, specifications, network coordination, and quality assurance represents optimal design, while Norway’s gaps demonstrate necessity of systematic monitoring. • Economic validation supports investment: The Netherlands’ TTCM provides evidence that systematic integration achieves clinical improvement and cost reduction, creating compelling arguments for healthcare investment. Topic Rehabilitation, trauma care, comparative analysis.