Denmark's Community Falls Prevention: Can Municipal Rehabilitation, Housing Adaptations and Primary Care Reduce Injury Risk?

An older person in Denmark may return home after treatment for a fall with no serious lasting injury, yet find that everyday life has changed considerably. Walking to the shops feels less secure. Bathing requires more concentration. Family members begin discouraging activities that previously formed part of a normal routine. Even when the physical injury heals, reduced confidence can gradually narrow the person's independence.

Preventing this progression requires more than identifying hazards or prescribing exercise. Denmark's municipalities, general practitioners, hospitals and rehabilitation professionals each influence whether an older resident can regain mobility, understand relevant health risks and remain active within a suitable home environment. These relationships form part of the wider Danish system examined through the Denmark Knowledge Hub on ageing, long-term care and community support.

Falls prevention has particular relevance as Denmark implements the Elderly Act, Ældreloven, introduced in July 2025, and prepares for changes to the organisation of healthcare from 2027. The policy direction emphasises independence, continuity and stronger support closer to people's homes.

The central question is how that ambition translates into practical decisions. A hospital may identify an injury, a general practitioner may investigate a medical cause, and a municipality may assess rehabilitation or housing needs. Unless those contributions connect, an older person can receive several interventions without a coherent plan for returning to ordinary activities.

Effective falls prevention therefore needs to balance safety with autonomy, clinical assessment with everyday functioning, and individual support with the wider conditions that make homes and communities accessible.

Falls Prevention Within Denmark's Health and Municipal Care System

Denmark's publicly financed health system distributes responsibilities between the state, regions and municipalities. The Ministry of the Interior and Health establishes the overarching legislative and policy framework, while Sundhedsstyrelsen, the Danish Health Authority, develops professional guidance and recommendations across relevant areas of healthcare.

In October 2026, Denmark continues to operate through five healthcare regions, with reforms preparing a four-region structure from 2027. The regions are responsible for hospitals and the regional arrangements governing general practice, while municipalities deliver a range of preventive, rehabilitation, nursing and elderly support functions.

Falls prevention does not belong exclusively to one organisation. It crosses several responsibilities that may become relevant at different stages of a person's experience.

A hospital may assess and treat a fracture. A general practitioner may investigate dizziness, medication effects or an underlying condition. Municipal professionals may assess everyday functioning, deliver appropriate rehabilitation or consider support in the home.

The precise route depends on the person's circumstances and the legal basis for the service. Denmark does not operate one universal municipal falls prevention package that automatically becomes available following every fall.

Some residents benefit from general preventive activities. Others require clinically directed rehabilitation, an individual assessment for assistive devices or support through municipal elderly services.

This distinction matters because prevention and early intervention should not be confused with an automatic entitlement to every potentially useful intervention.

The stronger approach is to identify the relevant need, determine which organisation has responsibility and ensure that the person understands the available route.

Understanding Falls Risk Beyond Age and Physical Weakness

Falls among older people can arise from combinations of physical, medical, environmental and behavioural factors. Reduced muscle strength and balance may contribute, but so can visual impairment, certain medicines, acute illness, unsuitable footwear or difficulties navigating the home.

Social circumstances also influence risk. Someone who becomes isolated may reduce physical activity, lose confidence and gradually become less able to manage ordinary journeys.

It would therefore be misleading to treat falls as an unavoidable consequence of growing older.

Equally, it would be inappropriate to assume that every older resident needs a comprehensive falls assessment. Professional responses should be proportionate to relevant concerns, previous events and the person's wishes.

One important distinction is between a fall caused primarily by an environmental hazard and an event potentially associated with a medical condition.

A loose rug may be an obvious contributing factor, but recurrent unexplained falls, fainting or sudden changes in mobility require consideration of possible clinical causes.

Municipal professionals should understand the limits of their role and know when medical assessment is appropriate.

The relationship between falls, medicines and frailty is particularly important because different risks may interact.

For example, an older resident taking several medicines may experience dizziness while also living in a house with steep stairs. Addressing the stairs alone may not resolve the underlying problem.

Conversely, adjusting a clinical treatment without considering the person's home environment may leave significant everyday hazards unchanged.

Falls prevention becomes more effective when the response reflects the whole situation rather than a single visible risk factor.

The Legal Distinction Between Rehabilitation, Training and Home Support

Denmark's legal framework provides different routes for rehabilitation and practical assistance, and those distinctions affect how falls-related support is organised.

Under Sundhedsloven, the Health Act, a person discharged from hospital may receive a genoptræningsplan, or rehabilitation plan, where the relevant clinical criteria are met. This establishes a route for rehabilitation following hospital treatment, with responsibility for delivery determined by the applicable rehabilitation category and statutory arrangements.

Municipalities commonly provide general rehabilitation following hospital discharge, while regional hospital services retain responsibility for specified specialist and highly specialised rehabilitation.

Not every fall results in a rehabilitation plan. A person who has not been admitted to hospital, or whose needs arise outside that pathway, may require assessment through other municipal arrangements.

Serviceloven has historically provided important routes for maintenance training, assistive devices and home adaptations. Relevant provisions continue to matter alongside changes introduced through Ældreloven, which established a new framework for elderly care from July 2025.

Under the Elderly Act, eligible older people may receive coordinated elderly care through a more integrated approach to support and rehabilitation. However, this should not be interpreted as replacing every separate statutory rehabilitation, equipment or housing adaptation provision.

The operational distinction can be summarised through four broad routes:

• Hospital-related rehabilitation: clinically assessed rehabilitation following discharge, organised under the relevant Health Act arrangements.
• Municipal training and functional support: services considered through the applicable municipal legal framework and individual circumstances.
• Assistive devices and home adaptations: individually assessed support where statutory conditions are satisfied.
• Elderly care: relevant personal, practical and rehabilitative support under the framework applicable to the resident.

These routes may overlap in the person's everyday experience, but they are not legally interchangeable.

Municipal staff need to explain which assessment or decision-making process applies and ensure that residents are not promised services before eligibility has been established.

The distinction is especially important when a person has several needs following a fall. One assessment may identify a rehabilitation requirement, another an equipment need, and a further consideration may concern practical assistance at home.

Good coordination should reduce the burden of navigating those routes without obscuring the separate responsibilities involved.

Operational Scenario: Recovery After a Hip Fracture in Odense

Consider a hypothetical 79-year-old woman living alone in Odense who sustains a hip fracture following a fall in her kitchen.

She receives hospital treatment within the regional healthcare system. Before discharge, the relevant professionals assess her rehabilitation needs and determine whether a formal genoptræningsplan is required.

Her recovery is complicated by reduced confidence walking and difficulty using the stairs in her house.

The hospital's discharge arrangements communicate the relevant clinical information to the appropriate services. Her general practitioner remains an important point of contact for continuing medical concerns.

Municipal rehabilitation professionals assess her functional goals, including whether she can move safely around the home, prepare meals and resume ordinary activities.

Rather than defining success solely as improved walking distance, the woman identifies returning to her weekly community group as an important personal objective.

An occupational therapist considers the practical demands of her home environment. Any requirement for equipment or adaptations is addressed through the applicable municipal assessment and decision-making arrangements.

Her daughter offers temporary help with shopping but cannot provide daily assistance indefinitely.

The municipality therefore needs to distinguish between rehabilitation, temporary practical support and any longer-term assistance for which the woman may qualify.

Progress is reviewed against her actual functioning and preferences. If pain, dizziness or other clinical concerns interfere with recovery, these are directed to the appropriate healthcare professional.

The case illustrates why a rehabilitation plan alone does not guarantee an effective return home. Recovery depends on the interaction between clinical treatment, housing conditions, municipal services and the person's confidence.

For the woman, the meaningful outcome is not merely avoiding another hospital admission. It is recovering enough independence to participate in activities that give everyday life purpose.

Municipal Rehabilitation as a Route Back to Everyday Independence

Rehabilitation is central to Denmark's approach because a fall can change how an older person functions even when the immediate injury is relatively minor.

Some people become reluctant to leave home after an incident. Others reduce physical activity because they fear another fall. These responses can be understandable, particularly where the experience was painful or frightening, but prolonged inactivity may contribute to further loss of strength and confidence.

Municipal rehabilitation can help address these consequences through individually appropriate training, functional assessment and support for returning to meaningful activities.

Physiotherapists and occupational therapists often contribute different but complementary expertise. Physiotherapy may address strength, balance, mobility and movement. Occupational therapy may examine how the person manages daily activities and whether changes to routines, equipment or the environment would support independence.

The professional contribution depends on the individual's needs and the relevant service arrangements. Rehabilitation should not be reduced to a fixed number of exercise sessions offered without regard to progress.

A person who can walk confidently within a treatment setting may still struggle with uneven pavements, carrying shopping or entering a bathroom safely.

Functional goals therefore need to reflect real environments. Training may be more meaningful when connected to activities the person wishes to resume, rather than relying exclusively on standardised exercises.

The principles of outcomes-focused support are relevant because improvements in physical performance do not always translate automatically into greater participation.

There is also an important distinction between helping someone develop skills and permanently taking over activities they might reasonably regain.

Appropriate support should recognise both recovery potential and the person's right to make informed decisions. Some residents will require continuing assistance despite rehabilitation. Others may become more independent when their confidence and functional ability improve.

Municipalities need sufficient workforce capacity to provide timely interventions, but also appropriate review arrangements so that rehabilitation remains responsive to changing needs.

Delays can matter. A person waiting for assessment may adopt increasingly restrictive routines, making recovery more difficult. However, prioritisation should reflect clinical and functional considerations rather than assuming that all referrals carry identical urgency.

Housing Adaptations and Assistive Devices: Making Safety Practical

Denmark's housing stock presents different challenges for falls prevention. Older residents may live in detached houses, apartment buildings, rural properties or housing specifically designed for later life.

The relevant hazards differ accordingly. Internal stairs, narrow bathrooms, uneven entrances, poor lighting and unsuitable access arrangements may affect everyday mobility.

Housing adaptations can sometimes reduce risk, but they should follow individual assessment rather than a general assumption that every older person's home requires modification.

Under the relevant provisions of Serviceloven, municipalities may assess eligibility for assistive devices and housing alterations where statutory conditions are met. These decisions are distinct from ordinary maintenance or improvements that a homeowner might choose to purchase privately.

A handrail, shower adaptation or suitable mobility aid may be appropriate in one situation but unnecessary or unsuitable in another.

Professional assessment should consider how the person uses the home, the nature of the functional limitation and whether the proposed intervention is likely to address the identified difficulty.

The wider principles of equipment and home adaptations are relevant because effective provision depends on fit, usability and the person's ability to use the equipment safely.

There may also be practical questions concerning property ownership, building restrictions and the feasibility of structural changes.

In some circumstances, a resident may choose to make privately funded changes even where a municipality does not approve statutory assistance. These choices should not be confused with a public entitlement.

Housing decisions should also consider longer-term suitability. A minor adaptation may resolve an immediate difficulty, while a home with multiple inaccessible features may present more substantial challenges.

However, professionals should avoid assuming that moving home is the preferred solution. Housing has emotional, social and cultural significance, and residents may place considerable value on remaining in familiar surroundings.

The appropriate response balances practical risk reduction with the person's preferences, resources and rights.

Operational Scenario: An Older Couple in Rural North Jutland

A hypothetical couple in their early eighties live in a small community in North Jutland. The husband has developed reduced mobility following several minor falls, while his wife manages most household tasks.

Their home has a narrow entrance, uneven outdoor paving and a bathroom that is difficult for him to use.

They have not requested formal elderly care. The husband is concerned that seeking assistance will result in pressure to move into alternative accommodation.

A municipal professional explains that assessment is intended to understand his functional needs and available options, not automatically determine where the couple should live.

An occupational therapist considers whether equipment or modifications could improve access and safety. A physiotherapist assesses relevant mobility and balance concerns through the appropriate service pathway.

The husband also reports occasional dizziness. Because this may have a medical cause, he is encouraged to seek assessment through general practice rather than treating the matter solely as a housing problem.

The couple's rural location complicates access to group activities. Public transport is limited, and the nearest suitable exercise programme requires a journey they cannot easily manage.

The municipality therefore considers whether an accessible alternative exists within its service arrangements, rather than assuming that referral to a distant programme represents an effective intervention.

Any equipment or adaptation is considered under the relevant statutory criteria, with the couple informed about the decision and available routes for raising concerns.

For the husband, maintaining access to his garden is particularly important. This preference helps shape the practical discussion about outdoor mobility.

The scenario illustrates that effective falls prevention in rural Denmark involves more than providing standard advice. Housing conditions, transport, clinical concerns and personal priorities interact.

It also demonstrates why geographic variation should influence municipal service planning. A programme that is accessible in a town centre may not offer equivalent opportunities to residents in smaller settlements.

General Practice, Medicines and Clinical Assessment

General practice plays an important role in investigating falls that may be associated with underlying medical conditions.

Dizziness, fainting, changes in blood pressure, visual difficulties and medication-related effects may all require clinical consideration. The appropriate response depends on the person's presentation and medical history.

Municipal professionals may identify concerns during rehabilitation or home support, but clinical investigation and prescribing decisions belong with appropriately authorised healthcare professionals.

This boundary is especially important where several medicines are involved. Changes to treatment should not be made simply because a municipal worker believes a medicine may increase falls risk.

Instead, relevant observations can inform a discussion with the resident and, where appropriate, communication with their general practitioner or another responsible clinician.

The resident's consent, confidentiality and applicable information-sharing rules remain important.

Clinical advice must also be translated into everyday practice. A person may understand that medication is being reviewed but still need assistance identifying how to manage activities safely during a period of reduced confidence.

The broader principles of coordinated professional working therefore apply, although Danish organisational responsibilities differ from those of other countries.

Good coordination does not mean transferring every minor concern between services. It means knowing when another professional contribution is necessary and ensuring that important information is not lost.

Recurrent unexplained falls, significant injury or sudden deterioration should prompt an appropriate response according to the person's circumstances and clinical urgency.

Operational Scenario: Recurrent Falls and Medication Concerns in Aarhus

A hypothetical 86-year-old man in Aarhus receives municipal home assistance and has experienced three falls over several months.

None has resulted in a major fracture, but he has become increasingly reluctant to walk outside. His son believes the problem is simply poor balance and asks whether additional exercise sessions can be arranged.

During a routine visit, a municipal professional learns that the man sometimes feels light-headed when standing. He also reports recent changes to his prescribed medicines.

The professional recognises that a rehabilitation response may be useful but should not replace appropriate clinical assessment.

With the man's involvement and in accordance with relevant communication arrangements, the concern is directed to his general practitioner.

The practitioner considers the reported symptoms and medication history, deciding what clinical review or investigation is required.

Meanwhile, municipal professionals consider his immediate functional needs, including whether he can move safely around the home and whether temporary assistance is appropriate under the applicable service arrangements.

An occupational therapist identifies that poor lighting near the bedroom contributes to his difficulties at night. The practical response is considered alongside, rather than instead of, the clinical concerns.

The man's son is included in discussions with his agreement, but decisions remain centred on the resident's own preferences.

As his condition is reviewed, the municipality considers whether suitable balance training could help him regain confidence outdoors.

The important governance issue is the interaction between clinical and municipal responsibilities. Neither organisation can assume that the other has addressed every relevant risk.

If repeated falls are occurring among several residents receiving the same service, managers may examine whether staff recognise relevant warning signs and know how to communicate concerns appropriately.

The scenario demonstrates why effective prevention depends on coordinated professional judgement rather than attributing every fall to age, environmental hazards or insufficient exercise.

Workforce Capacity and the Quality of Rehabilitation

Falls prevention depends on a workforce capable of assessing different forms of risk and delivering interventions that are appropriate to individual circumstances.

Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses, social- og sundhedsassistenter and social- og sundhedshjælpere may encounter falls-related concerns through different aspects of municipal service delivery.

The latter two groups are important parts of Denmark's health and social care workforce, although their qualifications, responsibilities and authorised activities differ.

Effective service organisation should recognise those distinctions. Staff who observe changes in mobility need to know how to report them, while clinical and rehabilitation decisions should remain with professionals competent and authorised to undertake them.

Workforce planning must account for travel, assessment, treatment, documentation and coordination time. A rural rehabilitation service may require different staffing arrangements from a programme serving residents within a compact urban area.

Municipalities also need to consider continuity. Frequent changes of professional can make it harder to understand whether a resident's functioning is improving or deteriorating.

The Predictive Workforce Risk Module offers organisations a general way to examine staffing vulnerabilities and service continuity risks. It is not a Danish workforce regulatory instrument, and any application would require local assumptions and professional interpretation.

Training should address more than the mechanics of falls prevention. Professionals need communication skills, knowledge of referral boundaries, awareness of relevant legal arrangements and confidence supporting people who may be fearful after an injury.

Supervision can help staff distinguish between proportionate risk management and unnecessarily restrictive practice.

A service focused exclusively on preventing incidents may inadvertently discourage activities that sustain strength, confidence and quality of life.

Workforce quality therefore depends on the ability to support safe participation, not simply minimise exposure to movement.

Funding, Municipal Budgets and the Cost of Effective Prevention

Denmark's public financing arrangements create a strong role for municipalities in organising rehabilitation, relevant equipment provision and elderly support. Municipal activities are financed through the wider system of taxation, grants and intergovernmental financial arrangements.

However, the fact that a service is publicly organised does not mean that every intervention is automatically available without assessment.

Eligibility, the legal basis for assistance and the type of service determine how individual needs are addressed. Residents may also choose privately purchased products or activities, but these should be distinguished from publicly funded provision.

Falls prevention presents a particular financial challenge because costs and potential benefits may arise in different parts of the system.

A municipality may fund rehabilitation or an adaptation, while an avoided hospital admission would primarily affect regional healthcare activity. Conversely, hospital treatment may identify needs that subsequently require municipal expenditure.

This distribution of responsibility can complicate investment decisions.

Municipalities must consider immediate expenditure on staff, equipment and service delivery while also assessing longer-term benefits to independence and wellbeing.

Those benefits are important, but they should not be translated automatically into claims of financial savings.

A rehabilitation programme may improve mobility without eliminating the possibility of future falls. A housing adaptation may increase independence even where it does not measurably reduce hospital admissions.

The financial case should therefore distinguish between service costs, demonstrated outcomes and plausible longer-term benefits.

Organisations examining comparable decisions can use the Digital Twin Scenario Modeller to explore alternative workforce and service-capacity assumptions. It provides a general planning framework rather than an official Danish reimbursement or budget-setting mechanism.

Good investment decisions should also consider whether prevention is reaching residents who would otherwise struggle to access services. A programme concentrated in accessible urban locations may appear efficient while overlooking people with substantial transport barriers.

Digital Technology, Monitoring and Personal Autonomy

Technology can support falls prevention, but its contribution depends on the problem being addressed.

Digital rehabilitation information may help professionals coordinate activity. Remote consultations may improve access to specialist advice in appropriate circumstances. Personal alarms and selected monitoring technologies may help residents obtain assistance after an incident.

These functions are different. A device that detects a possible fall does not necessarily prevent the fall from occurring.

Similarly, technology that alerts a relative or service provider may create additional response responsibilities rather than remove the need for human support.

Denmark has an established digital public-service environment, but this should not be interpreted as universal digital confidence among older residents.

Some people may find digital tools useful and reassuring. Others may experience difficulties involving accessibility, connectivity, privacy or the practical management of devices.

The principles of technology-enabled support for older people are relevant because effective adoption depends on individual circumstances rather than technological availability alone.

Where monitoring is considered, residents should understand what information is collected, who can access it and how any alert will be handled.

Professionals must also consider the reliability of equipment, false alerts and the consequences of system failure.

A monitoring device should not be presented as guaranteeing safety, particularly where no reliable response arrangement exists.

Future developments in artificial intelligence and sensor technology may offer additional opportunities, but experimental or locally adopted solutions should not be described as established national practice.

Organisations considering similar developments can use the Digital Transformation Readiness Assessment to examine implementation capability, information governance and workforce readiness. The resource does not establish compliance with Danish law or certify a technology's clinical effectiveness.

The most appropriate technological intervention is one that addresses an identified need while respecting the person's preferences and maintaining clear responsibility for support.

Measuring Outcomes Without Reducing Prevention to Incident Counts

Falls prevention programmes need credible evidence, but a narrow focus on incident numbers can produce misleading conclusions.

A resident who becomes more active after rehabilitation may encounter more everyday situations in which a fall is possible. That does not necessarily mean the intervention has reduced their wellbeing.

Conversely, a person who rarely leaves a chair may experience few falls while losing strength, confidence and social participation.

Outcome measurement should therefore consider both safety and the person's ability to live independently.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Changes in mobility, balance and functional ability using appropriate assessment measures.
• Resident-reported confidence in completing valued everyday activities.
• Falls and injuries, interpreted alongside activity levels and individual circumstances.
• Timeliness of rehabilitation, equipment assessment and relevant follow-up.
• Access to services across different municipalities, neighbourhoods and population groups.
• Resident and family experience of coordination, choice and communication.

Municipalities should distinguish between activity measures and outcomes. The number of rehabilitation appointments completed may demonstrate service delivery but not necessarily functional improvement.

Likewise, an increase in recorded falls may reflect better reporting rather than a genuine deterioration in safety.

Interpretation requires professional judgement and sufficient context.

The Quality Dashboard Builder can help organisations structure performance indicators and assurance information. Danish municipalities would need to apply their own data definitions, governance requirements and evaluation standards.

Evidence should also inform decisions about service accessibility. If residents repeatedly struggle to attend rehabilitation because of transport or mobility barriers, increasing appointment capacity alone may not address the problem.

Effective evaluation connects measurable outcomes with the practical conditions influencing them.

Governance, Local Variation and Accountability for Safer Ageing

Denmark's municipalities have considerable operational responsibilities, but the organisation of falls prevention can vary according to population characteristics, workforce availability and local service arrangements.

That variation is not necessarily inappropriate. A rural municipality with dispersed settlements may need different rehabilitation arrangements from a densely populated urban municipality.

The governance question is whether local arrangements remain lawful, accessible, professionally appropriate and responsive to residents' needs.

Municipal political and administrative leadership should understand how relevant statutory responsibilities are fulfilled, while operational managers need clear arrangements for assessment, professional oversight and service coordination.

Regional healthcare organisations and general practice retain their own responsibilities. Effective cooperation requires clarity rather than an assumption that shared involvement automatically creates shared accountability for every decision.

Where a resident experiences repeated falls, the relevant professionals should be able to identify what has been assessed, what action is planned and who is responsible for further review.

However, documentation should remain proportionate. Excessive recording requirements can divert time from rehabilitation and meaningful contact.

Residents also need accessible information about municipal decisions, available services and applicable routes for raising concerns or challenging decisions.

Feedback from people using services can reveal difficulties that formal performance indicators miss, including confusing referral arrangements, unsuitable appointment locations or equipment that is technically appropriate but difficult to use.

The broader principles of resident feedback and co-production can help translate these experiences into service improvement.

Governance becomes effective when recurring concerns influence workforce planning, professional guidance and local service design.

Denmark's Reform Direction and International Lessons

Denmark's continuing reforms create opportunities to improve the connections between hospital treatment, municipal rehabilitation and ongoing community support.

Ældreloven emphasises self-determination, continuity and a more integrated approach to elderly care. These principles are relevant to falls prevention because successful recovery often depends on coordinated support around the person's everyday life.

The healthcare reform agreed in 2024, with significant structural changes planned from 2027, may also affect the organisation of services and cooperation between regions and municipalities.

In October 2026, those future arrangements should be treated as an implementation transition rather than a fully established operating model.

The important question is whether reform improves practical continuity for residents who move between hospital treatment, rehabilitation, general practice and municipal assistance.

For international systems, Denmark offers several useful principles without providing a universally transferable institutional model.

Its approach demonstrates the value of treating falls prevention as a combination of clinical assessment, rehabilitation, environmental suitability and participation in everyday life.

It also highlights the importance of defining responsibilities when services are delivered by different organisations.

Countries with different financing structures may not be able to reproduce Denmark's municipal arrangements. They can nevertheless adapt the principle of connecting injury prevention with functional recovery and the person's preferred activities.

Another transferable lesson concerns housing. Preventive healthcare can be undermined when a person's living environment remains inaccessible, even after effective clinical treatment.

Finally, Denmark's experience illustrates why prevention should be evaluated through independence, confidence and quality of life alongside injuries and service use.

The strongest international learning lies in understanding how those different outcomes interact rather than treating a reduction in recorded falls as the only measure of success.

Conclusion

Denmark's community falls prevention arrangements demonstrate that reducing injury risk requires more than responding to individual incidents. Effective prevention depends on the relationship between healthcare, rehabilitation, housing conditions, municipal support and the person's everyday choices.

The country's public-service structure provides opportunities for these contributions to connect, but organisational responsibilities remain distinct. Hospitals, general practitioners and municipalities each make decisions within their respective professional and legal frameworks.

The practical challenge is ensuring that residents experience those separate responsibilities as a coherent pathway rather than a succession of disconnected assessments.

Rehabilitation can help people regain mobility and confidence. Housing adaptations and assistive devices may improve the accessibility of everyday activities. Clinical review can identify underlying causes that environmental changes alone cannot address.

None of these interventions should be applied automatically or without regard to individual circumstances.

Denmark's elderly care and healthcare reforms provide an opportunity to strengthen continuity, but their success will depend on workforce capability, clear accountability, accessible services and meaningful evaluation.

The strongest future approach will recognise that safety and independence are not opposing objectives. Preventing injury should support people to remain active, maintain relationships and participate in the communities they value.

For Denmark, the central measure of effective falls prevention is therefore not simply whether fewer incidents are recorded. It is whether older residents receive timely, proportionate and coordinated support that enables them to live with greater confidence, dignity and independence.