Making Complaints and Feedback Work in Older-Person Care in Viet Nam: Accessible Channels, Fair Handling and Quality Improvement

Making Complaints and Feedback Work in Older-Person Care in Viet Nam: Accessible Channels, Fair Handling and Quality Improvement

An older woman living in a residential care facility is unhappy with the way staff respond when she asks for assistance. She knows the caregivers are busy and worries that complaining might affect how they treat her afterward. Rather than raise the issue, she remains silent.

Elsewhere, a family has contacted a care provider several times about concerns involving their older relative. Different employees have listened and promised to follow up, but nobody has explained who is responsible for reviewing the matter or when the family can expect an answer.

In another organization, a care worker notices a recurring problem affecting residents' everyday experience. The worker raises it informally, but the concern never reaches someone with the authority to make changes.

These situations illustrate a problem that can occur across healthcare and long-term care services. Giving people opportunities to express concerns does not necessarily mean those concerns are heard, considered fairly or used to improve care.

A complaint is not simply a problem to close. It is an opportunity to respond fairly, protect the person raising the concern and improve the care being delivered.

For older people, being able to speak up can be particularly important when they depend on others for daily assistance, live in a residential facility or find it difficult to communicate with service managers. Some concerns are straightforward, involving communication, service arrangements or unmet expectations. Others may indicate serious safety problems, possible mistreatment or disputes requiring professional, regulatory or legal intervention.

Organizations need to recognize these differences without making it unnecessarily difficult for people to raise concerns.

As age-friendly and long-term care services develop in Viet Nam, providers have an opportunity to strengthen not only how they receive feedback but also how they respond, explain decisions and learn from people's experiences.

The central question is how healthcare and care organizations in Viet Nam can make complaints and feedback accessible, handle them fairly, protect the rights of those involved and turn relevant findings into meaningful service improvement.

Why Complaints and Feedback Matter for Care Quality

Healthcare and long-term care organizations often assess quality through professional standards, operating procedures, service records and performance indicators. These sources are important, but they do not always show how people experience care.

A service may meet its internal schedule while an older person repeatedly feels rushed during assistance. A facility may have written communication procedures while residents remain uncertain about whom to contact when something goes wrong. A provider may consider a concern resolved even though the person who raised it has never received an explanation.

Such gaps can be difficult to identify through routine administrative records.

Complaints and feedback offer another way of understanding whether care is working as intended. They may reveal problems with communication, accessibility, staff responsiveness, service coordination or the way organizational decisions affect everyday life.

Positive feedback matters too. When older people explain what works well, organizations can identify practices worth maintaining or extending.

However, complaints should not be treated merely as another source of performance data. Behind a complaint may be someone who feels disappointed, anxious, uncertain or unheard. The organization needs to respond appropriately to that person's concern before considering what can be learned from it.

The World Health Organization's approach to quality management in long-term care emphasizes continuous improvement and services that respond to people's needs and preferences. This supports the view that quality cannot be understood entirely through internal processes. The experiences of people receiving care also matter.

A credible complaints system therefore has two connected responsibilities: addressing individual concerns appropriately and identifying opportunities to improve services.

Neither should replace the other.

An organization should not delay responding to an individual because a broader improvement project is planned. Equally, resolving one person's concern should not prevent management from examining whether the same problem affects others.

Understanding Feedback, Complaints and Other Concerns

People do not always use formal language when something is wrong.

An older person may describe a problem casually to a caregiver. A family member may send a message asking why a service was delayed. An employee may tell a supervisor that a particular arrangement repeatedly causes difficulties.

These communications can have different implications.

Feedback may include comments, suggestions, appreciation or observations about a service. It does not necessarily mean that something has gone wrong.

A service complaint generally expresses dissatisfaction with care, communication, conduct or service delivery. The person may expect an explanation, corrective action or another appropriate response, even when the concern is not presented as a formal complaint.

A safeguarding concern may involve suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation or another threat to a person's rights or safety. A clinical safety incident or allegation of professional misconduct may require assessment through a separate clinical, professional or incident-management process.

A formal legal complaint, denunciation, consumer dispute or claim for compensation may involve specific rights, competent authorities and procedures established by law.

These categories can overlap.

For example, a family may complain that an older resident has repeatedly waited too long for essential assistance. What initially appears to be dissatisfaction with service responsiveness may, after review, reveal a risk of harm or possible neglect.

Similarly, disagreement about fees or the terms of a care agreement may require contractual or consumer-protection consideration rather than ordinary internal quality review alone.

The purpose of distinguishing these matters is not to make the process complicated. It is to ensure that concerns reach the people and procedures capable of addressing them appropriately.

The words used by the person raising a concern should not determine the organization's entire response. The nature, seriousness and legal implications of the matter must also be considered.

Older people and families should not have to understand these distinctions before they can speak up. Staff should be able to receive concerns respectfully and arrange appropriate assessment or referral.

The Legal and Regulatory Context in Viet Nam

Viet Nam has several legal frameworks relevant to older people's rights, the responsibilities of care providers and the handling of particular types of complaints.

These frameworks serve different purposes. They should not be treated as one uniform complaints law applying to every healthcare and long-term care organization.

The Law on the Elderly No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended, provides an important foundation concerning the care, protection and lawful rights of older people.

Article 3 addresses rights involving basic needs, healthcare, living arrangements and participation in social and cultural activities. Article 9 prohibits acts including mistreatment, humiliation, abuse, discrimination and interference with older people's lawful rights.

These provisions are relevant when someone raises concerns about how an older person is treated or whether their rights are being respected. They do not, by themselves, establish a complete and identical complaints-handling procedure for every care organization.

Consumer Protection and Older People

The Law on Protection of Consumers' Rights No. 19/2023/QH15, effective July 1, 2024, is particularly relevant to services provided through consumer transactions. Its provisions should be read together with applicable amendments, including the consolidated text issued as Document No. 47/VBHN-VPQH on March 17, 2026.

Article 8 identifies older people, as defined under the legislation concerning older persons, as one of the groups of vulnerable consumers.

The law provides specific protections for vulnerable consumers and corresponding responsibilities for organizations and individuals conducting business within its scope.

In particular, Point c, Clause 2 of Article 8 addresses priority receipt and handling when a vulnerable consumer requests protection and provides evidence or documents demonstrating the relevant vulnerable-consumer status and infringement of their rights.

In those circumstances, the business must prioritize receiving and handling the request. It must not transfer responsibility for resolving the request to a third party unless that third party has relevant obligations.

If the business refuses to resolve a qualifying request, the law requires a written response explaining the legal grounds and why the request is inconsistent with the business's published policy under the applicable provisions.

Clause 3 establishes additional responsibilities for businesses when transacting with vulnerable consumers. These include appropriate complaint and dispute-resolution arrangements, measures against discrimination, and procedures suited to the needs of vulnerable consumers.

Certain obligations concerning the publication of these arrangements and staff training under Point e, Clause 3 are subject to specific exceptions for qualifying independent traders, small enterprises and microenterprises, according to the conditions established by law.

Those exceptions should not be interpreted as removing every consumer-protection obligation of the businesses concerned.

Another important provision is Article 31, which concerns the receipt and handling of consumer feedback, requests and complaints.

Clause 2 of Article 31 requires organizations and individuals conducting business within its scope to notify consumers of receipt of feedback, requests or complaints within three working days of receiving them.

This is a statutory notification-of-receipt requirement. It is not a universal deadline for completing an investigation, reaching a decision or resolving every complaint.

Clause 3 of Article 31 also addresses the responsibility of relevant businesses to establish and publicly display their complaints-handling procedures. That provision contains a specific exception for qualifying independent traders and microenterprises.

The exception under Clause 3 should not be interpreted as a general exemption from the separate notification-of-receipt requirement under Clause 2.

These distinctions matter because a care provider cannot rely solely on voluntary quality improvement targets when a legally applicable deadline or procedure already exists.

At the same time, the statutory priority-handling mechanism for qualifying vulnerable-consumer requests under Article 8 should not be confused with the broader expectation that ordinary service feedback should be easy to raise.

A provider may receive and address an informal verbal concern without first requiring the person to submit a formal legal request supported by documentary evidence. That does not determine whether the matter also qualifies for specific statutory protections.

Consumer-protection requirements are relevant when the transaction and relationship fall within the law's scope. However, not every interaction with a public social assistance facility, public healthcare organization or other care provider should automatically be treated as an identical consumer transaction.

The provider's legal status, the nature of the service and other applicable legislation must be considered.

Government Decree No. 55/2024/ND-CP, as amended, provides implementing provisions. Ministry of Industry and Trade Consolidated Document No. 29/VBHN-BCT, dated April 13, 2026, is a relevant consolidated reference.

Patient Rights and Social Assistance Services

The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15 establishes another relevant framework where regulated healthcare services are provided.

Article 14 recognizes patients' rights to raise petitions concerning shortcomings, difficulties and other matters arising during medical examination and treatment, as well as their right to compensation in accordance with the applicable legal provisions.

These rights operate within the medical examination and treatment framework. They should not automatically be treated as identical to complaints involving nonclinical personal care.

For social assistance facilities, Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, issued on October 23, 2026, and scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026, provides an updated framework concerning facilities within its scope.

Its provisions are relevant to organizational responsibilities for care, assistance, protection and management.

However, the decree should not be interpreted as establishing the same independent complaints commissioner, statutory complaint procedures or regulatory structures used in Australia.

The facility's legal classification and other applicable requirements remain important.

Formal Complaints, Denunciations and Other Remedies

Different laws may apply when a concern develops into a formal legal matter.

The Law on Complaints No. 02/2011/QH13, as amended, governs complaints involving administrative decisions, administrative acts and certain other matters within its statutory scope.

The Law on Denunciations No. 25/2018/QH14, as amended, provides a distinct framework for legally defined denunciations.

These procedures should not be confused with routine dissatisfaction about a private care service or an organization's voluntary feedback arrangements.

Contractual disputes, professional complaints, allegations of criminal conduct, employment matters and consumer-protection claims may also follow different processes.

An internal feedback system can help improve services, but it does not replace statutory rights, competent authorities, legal remedies or procedures required under applicable laws.

What International Guidance Can Contribute

Australia's current aged care framework provides a relevant example of how complaints and feedback can be integrated into organizational quality management.

The Aged Care Act 2024 and Aged Care Rules 2025 establish requirements for registered aged care providers within their respective scopes of application.

The Strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards, applicable from November 1, 2025, distinguish two outcomes concerning complaints and feedback.

Outcome 2.6a addresses complaints and feedback from aged care workers. Outcome 2.6b addresses complaints and feedback from individuals receiving services and other relevant people.

The framework emphasizes encouraging people to raise concerns without reprisal, acknowledging and transparently managing complaints, and using feedback to improve services.

Associated guidance also addresses accessible communication, advocacy, management responsibility, timely responses, appropriate disclosure and organizational learning.

These provisions recognize that complaints management involves both individual rights and organizational accountability.

However, Australia's system operates within its own legislation, regulatory institutions and funding arrangements. Its prescribed procedures, statutory protections, commissioner arrangements and reporting obligations should not automatically be presented as requirements for Vietnamese organizations.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) provides another useful perspective.

Guideline NG86, People's Experience in Adult Social Care Services, emphasizes accessible communication, support for people expressing their views and the importance of involving people in decisions affecting care.

NICE Quality Standard QS182, particularly Quality Statement 4, addresses the use of people's views to improve adult social care services.

These recommendations highlight an important point: feedback systems cannot be considered accessible if people have no practical way to express their experiences or obtain appropriate communication support.

ISO 10002:2018, Quality Management — Customer Satisfaction — Guidelines for Complaints Handling in Organizations, provides broader guidance on planning, operating, maintaining and improving complaints-handling processes.

The 2018 edition remains current following its review and confirmation in 2023.

ISO 10002 can inform organizations across sectors, but it is not automatically a mandatory legal requirement for every healthcare or long-term care organization in Viet Nam.

WHO Europe's 2024 publication, Promoting Quality Management in Long-Term Care, further supports organizational learning and continuous improvement.

Together, these references provide useful professional principles. A credible complaints system should be accessible, responsive, fair, transparent and capable of supporting improvement.

The challenge in Viet Nam is to apply these lessons in ways that reflect local services, organizational capabilities and applicable legal requirements.

Why the Absence of Complaints Does Not Necessarily Mean Satisfaction

Some older people may be reluctant to raise concerns because they depend on the same organization or workers for daily assistance.

A resident may worry that complaining will damage relationships with caregivers. Someone receiving home-based support may fear that raising a concern will make future visits uncomfortable.

Others may believe that their problem is too minor to justify a complaint or that nothing will change.

Previous experiences also influence willingness to speak. When a person has raised concerns without receiving a meaningful response, they may stop trying.

Communication barriers can make matters more difficult.

A person with hearing loss may struggle with telephone-based complaints arrangements. Someone with visual impairment may be unable to read a notice displayed in small print. An older person unfamiliar with digital technology may find an online form difficult to complete.

People with cognitive or communication difficulties may need support to express their concerns, but those difficulties should not automatically be equated with an inability to provide meaningful feedback.

These barriers do not affect every older person in the same way. Organizations should avoid treating older age as proof that someone lacks independence, understanding or decision-making ability.

Instead, they should consider the circumstances of the individual.

For some people, the most useful improvement may be a clearly identified person they can contact. Others may prefer to speak privately, receive communication support or raise a concern through someone they trust.

The absence of complaints should therefore be interpreted carefully.

A facility receiving few complaints may be delivering excellent care. It may also have channels that people do not know about, cannot use or do not trust.

The difference cannot be established simply by counting complaint forms.

Designing Channels That People Can Actually Use

A complaints system should reflect how older people and their families communicate in practice.

An online form may be convenient for some people but unsuitable for others. A telephone number may be helpful but difficult for someone with hearing impairment. A written form may create a reliable record while remaining inaccessible to people with visual, literacy or writing difficulties.

Organizations can consider a combination of channels suited to their services and applicable requirements. These may include speaking to an identified employee, contacting a supervisor, using a telephone service, submitting a written concern or communicating through an appropriate electronic system.

The aim is not to offer as many channels as possible. It is to provide channels that people can use and that the organization can manage reliably.

Information about the process should be clear. People need to understand whom they can approach, what happens after a concern is received and how they can find out whether it is being addressed.

Staff should also know how to help someone communicate a concern without changing its meaning or speaking on the person's behalf unnecessarily.

A resident should not always have to complain to the employee whose conduct or service is being questioned.

Someone who depends on a particular caregiver may feel uncomfortable raising concerns directly with that person. Access to another responsible employee or manager can reduce this barrier.

Where appropriate and available, independent advice, advocacy or other communication support may also be useful.

However, services and rights established in Australia or other countries should not be described as though an identical nationwide statutory advocacy system already exists in Viet Nam.

Accessibility also needs to be tested.

A notice may appear understandable to management but remain difficult for residents to read. A contact person may be identified on paper but rarely be available when someone wishes to speak.

Organizations should therefore ask the people using their services whether the complaints channels are understandable, convenient and comfortable to use.

A channel is accessible when people can use it in practice, not merely when it exists in a policy.

Creating Confidence That People Can Speak Up

An older person may know exactly how to make a complaint but still feel unable to do so.

This is particularly relevant in residential long-term care, where residents may depend on staff for mobility, personal hygiene, meals and other essential assistance.

If a person fears that complaining could affect how caregivers treat them, a formally accessible system may remain unused.

Organizations should establish clear expectations that people raising concerns in good faith will be treated respectfully and will not experience inappropriate disadvantage merely because they have spoken up.

These expectations need to be reflected in everyday management, not only written into a policy.

After a complaint is raised, the organization may need to consider whether the person continues to receive appropriate assistance and whether staff relationships remain respectful.

Residents should not be pressured to withdraw a complaint or describe a matter as resolved simply because management wants to close the record.

Similar concerns may affect families and employees.

A care worker should have an appropriate way to raise service-quality concerns, including concerns involving supervisors or established practices.

However, an organizational expectation against reprisals must be distinguished from legally defined protections for whistleblowers, complainants or persons making denunciations.

Vietnamese law does not necessarily provide identical protections for every worker, organization and type of disclosure.

The applicable rights, procedures and protections must be determined according to the circumstances.

A credible complaints system should encourage people to speak while avoiding unsupported promises about the legal protections available in every case.

Respecting Older People's Voices and Family Involvement

Families can play an important role in identifying concerns about older-person care.

They may notice changes, receive information from their relatives or raise questions about services. Their involvement is often valuable, particularly when the older person wishes to receive assistance with communication.

However, family participation should not automatically replace the older person's own views.

A person may need substantial physical assistance while remaining capable of expressing preferences and concerns.

Likewise, a diagnosis of dementia or another health condition should not automatically be interpreted as a legal determination that the person cannot participate.

Where an older person can communicate their concern, the organization should listen directly and provide appropriate support where needed.

When a relative or another person raises the concern, the provider should consider their relationship with the older person, the purpose of the communication and the applicable rules concerning representation and confidential information.

There is an important distinction between receiving information and disclosing it.

A care provider may receive a family member's observation without necessarily being authorized to share every detail of the resident's private care information in response.

Where legal representation or guardianship is relevant, the Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13 and other applicable provisions should be considered.

Authority should be established rather than assumed solely from a family relationship.

The aim is to respect the older person's participation while avoiding unnecessary barriers to the reporting of genuine concerns.

Receiving a Concern Without Prejudging It

The first response to a complaint can shape how the person experiences the entire process.

Someone may have spent considerable time deciding whether to speak. A dismissive or defensive response may discourage them from raising future concerns.

Staff receiving feedback should listen respectfully, clarify what the person is describing and understand what response they are seeking.

They should avoid immediately disputing the account or promising a particular outcome before the matter has been considered.

Some concerns may be clarified during the initial conversation. Others require documentation, referral or a more formal review.

Where further handling is needed, the organization should explain what happens next, identify an appropriate contact and provide information about how progress will be communicated.

A routine internal concern should not automatically be rejected simply because it was expressed verbally instead of through the provider's preferred form.

However, a legally prescribed procedure may have specific requirements concerning documentation, supporting evidence, authorized persons or deadlines. Those requirements must be respected where applicable.

For example, Article 31 of the Law on Protection of Consumers' Rights establishes a three-working-day period for notifying consumers that their feedback, request or complaint has been received by a business within the law's scope.

This should be distinguished from the additional conditions governing qualifying requests by vulnerable consumers under Point c, Clause 2 of Article 8.

An organization should also avoid treating the three-working-day notification requirement as a general deadline for resolving every complaint.

Different procedures, including formal negotiation or other statutory mechanisms, may have separate timeframes.

For matters not governed by a particular statutory timeframe, an organization may establish reasonable internal targets based on the nature, urgency and complexity of the concern.

What matters at the beginning is that the person knows their concern has been received, understands how it will be considered and can identify whom to contact for further information.

Assessing the Concern and Choosing the Appropriate Response

After receiving a complaint, the organization needs to determine the type of response required.

Some concerns can be addressed through clarification or a straightforward service adjustment. Others require management review, professional assessment, safeguarding action, investigation of an incident or referral to an appropriate authority.

The assessment should consider what has been reported, whether someone may be at risk, which actions have already been taken and who has the authority to respond.

A complaint about unclear information concerning a routine service may be suitable for review by the responsible manager.

A complaint suggesting significant harm, possible neglect or an immediate threat requires a different response.

Where clinical assessment is needed, the concern must reach appropriately authorized healthcare personnel.

Where the allegation involves suspected abuse, serious misconduct or possible unlawful conduct, the organization should determine which safeguarding, regulatory or legal processes apply.

The route should depend on the concern itself, not merely the way it was submitted.

A serious safety concern must not wait for the ordinary complaints timetable when immediate action is necessary.

This does not mean that the employee receiving the concern must independently determine clinical negligence or criminal responsibility.

Their responsibility may be to record what has been reported, recognize the possible urgency and notify the appropriate person or authority.

The complaints process should support timely escalation rather than delay it.

An organization also needs to recognize the limits of its authority.

A care provider may review its own service arrangements but may not have the legal authority to determine criminal responsibility, impose regulatory sanctions or resolve every dispute involving another organization.

Where a matter requires action outside its authority, the provider should explain the relevant limitations and identify appropriate next steps without promising an outcome.

Fair Handling Requires an Open Mind and Clear Responsibility

A fair complaints process should not assume that every allegation is correct. Equally, it should not begin from the position that the organization or its employees could not have made a mistake.

The person raising the concern should have an appropriate opportunity to explain what happened and what outcome they are seeking.

Staff and other people involved may also need an opportunity to provide relevant information, subject to the nature of the matter and applicable legal requirements.

The review should distinguish observations, allegations, documents, different accounts and findings supported by available evidence.

For example, a family may report that staff repeatedly failed to respond to requests for assistance.

An appropriate review may involve examining available service records, speaking with relevant personnel and considering whether the expected arrangements were reasonable and followed.

The purpose should be to establish what happened and whether corrective action is required.

The review should not simply seek information supporting the organization's initial explanation.

Conflicts of interest also deserve attention.

When a complaint concerns the conduct of the person normally responsible for handling complaints, that person may not be suitable to control the entire review without additional safeguards.

Organizations should establish a way to refer such matters to another person with appropriate responsibility, authority or independence.

Fair handling does not mean that every complaint will be substantiated or that every requested outcome must be granted.

It means that the concern receives appropriate consideration, relevant information is assessed and conclusions are explained clearly.

Where evidence is insufficient, the organization should say so rather than presenting an uncertain conclusion as established fact.

For older people and families, being listened to and receiving a clear explanation can be important even when they disagree with the final decision.

Communicating Outcomes and Confirming What Has Changed

One weakness that can occur in complaints management is the gap between making an internal decision and explaining it to the person concerned.

Management may consider a matter resolved because staff have been instructed to change a practice. The person who complained may still be unaware of what was found, what action was agreed or whether anything has changed.

A meaningful response should explain the outcome in language the person can understand.

Where a concern is substantiated, the organization should describe the relevant findings and corrective action, subject to lawful confidentiality requirements.

Where the information does not support the complaint, the response should explain the conclusion respectfully and identify any relevant further options.

Some complaints may be partially substantiated. Others may remain unresolved because available evidence is insufficient or the matter falls outside the provider's authority.

These outcomes should be recorded accurately.

It is important to distinguish several stages: acknowledging a complaint, completing a review, communicating a decision and implementing corrective action.

They are not necessarily completed at the same time.

For example, a facility may agree to change how staff communicate with families. The decision alone does not demonstrate that the new practice is working.

Follow-up may be necessary to determine whether the action occurred and whether the original problem has been addressed.

Where appropriate, an explanation, apology or service recovery measure may be valuable. However, such action should not be presented as an automatic substitute for compensation, statutory remedies or other obligations where applicable.

Nor should complainants be pressured to sign a statement that the matter has been resolved when they continue to disagree.

The organization can document that it has completed its internal review while accurately recording any remaining disagreement or unresolved action.

Sending a response is not the same as correcting a problem.

That distinction is essential if complaints management is intended to support real improvement.

Knowing When External Review or Legal Remedies May Be Needed

An internal complaints system should not be presented as the only available way for older people and families to seek assistance.

Depending on the circumstances, a concern may fall within consumer-protection procedures, healthcare regulation, administrative complaints mechanisms, contractual dispute resolution or other legally established processes.

The relevant route depends on the provider's legal status, the nature of the issue and the rights involved.

Organizations should not assume that every dissatisfied person must complete all internal stages before using an external mechanism.

Whether internal steps are required or relevant depends on the applicable law and particular procedure.

Likewise, every complaint should not automatically be directed to the same public authority.

A commercial service dispute, a complaint about regulated healthcare activities and a complaint involving an administrative decision may require different forms of consideration.

Where external review is appropriate, the organization should provide accurate information within its knowledge and authority.

It should not claim to determine whether an external body will accept jurisdiction or what outcome that body will reach.

International systems can inform local quality improvement, but their institutions should not be copied into descriptions of Vietnamese legal remedies without an established legal basis.

The purpose of an internal pathway is to help address concerns appropriately while respecting people's lawful options to pursue other remedies.

Learning From Concerns Raised by Care Workers

Care workers may recognize recurring problems before they appear in management reports.

They may notice that residents repeatedly express the same dissatisfaction, that a communication process causes confusion or that a particular service arrangement does not work as intended.

Workers may also receive concerns informally from older people who are reluctant to approach management.

These observations can provide valuable information.

However, employees may hesitate to report concerns if they believe doing so will be interpreted as criticism of colleagues or supervisors.

Organizations should provide appropriate channels for staff feedback and clarify when an issue needs formal incident reporting, safeguarding action, professional escalation or another legally required response.

A worker's suggestion for improving everyday service is not automatically a formal denunciation of misconduct.

Conversely, a suspected serious legal violation should not be confined to an informal suggestion system when applicable law requires a different process.

Management should examine relevant worker feedback alongside residents' and families' experiences.

For example, residents may complain about delayed responses while staff report unclear responsibilities during certain periods. The two sources may point toward the same operational problem.

Considering them together can help the organization identify a more effective improvement than addressing each complaint in isolation.

A constructive reporting culture encourages people to raise concerns while retaining appropriate accountability for professional conduct and legal obligations.

Protecting Confidentiality and Personal Information

Complaints may contain personal information about residents, families, employees or other individuals.

The information can concern health conditions, care needs, relationships, alleged conduct or events that have not yet been independently established.

Organizations should therefore consider how complaint information is recorded, reviewed, shared, stored and retained.

The Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, both effective January 1, 2026, provide the relevant general legal framework.

Processing must comply with applicable requirements concerning lawful grounds, purpose, necessity, security and other obligations.

A complaint should not automatically be circulated in full to every employee in the organization.

Information should reach people appropriately authorized to assess or address the matter.

Where the concern involves health-related information, additional professional and confidentiality requirements may apply.

Anonymity and confidentiality also require careful explanation.

Some concerns can be received anonymously. An organization may be able to examine certain patterns without knowing who raised them.

However, a lack of identifying or supporting information may limit what can reasonably be investigated.

Similarly, confidentiality should not be promised without qualification when lawful disclosure, professional responsibilities or serious safety concerns may require appropriate information sharing.

A person raising a concern should understand, as far as appropriate, how their information may be used and any relevant limits on confidentiality.

Records should distinguish allegations, available evidence, findings and unresolved questions.

Unverified allegations should not be presented as established facts.

When complaint information is used for quality improvement, aggregated or appropriately de-identified information may help reveal patterns, subject to applicable data protection requirements.

Confidentiality should protect both the person raising a concern and those whose actions are being reviewed.

An Accessible Feedback and Complaints Pathway

Healthcare and long-term care organizations can approach complaints management through a practical pathway connecting accessibility, fair handling and organizational improvement.

The proposed Accessible Feedback and Complaints Pathway brings together seven activities: making channels accessible, receiving and acknowledging concerns, assessing the nature and urgency of the issue, assigning appropriate responsibility, reviewing and responding fairly, confirming follow-up, and learning from the results.

The process begins by ensuring that people understand how to express a concern and have a suitable communication method available.

Once a concern is received, the organization should establish what has been reported, what the person is seeking and whether additional information is necessary.

The concern should then be assessed according to its nature, urgency and applicable legal or professional requirements.

Matters suitable for routine service handling need to be distinguished from those requiring immediate protection, clinical assessment, formal legal procedures or referral to another appropriate body.

Responsibility should be assigned to someone with the competence and authority to coordinate the response.

Fair review involves considering relevant information without prejudging the outcome.

The organization should communicate its findings and decisions, explain any limitations and identify further steps where necessary.

Follow-up should confirm whether actions within the organization's responsibility have been completed.

Management should then examine whether the concern reveals a wider issue affecting other people or services.

The pathway needs to operate as a connected process. Receiving a complaint promptly provides little benefit if nobody takes responsibility for reviewing it. Similarly, completing a detailed investigation does not amount to fair handling if the findings are never explained.

This pathway is a proposed organizational quality improvement approach. It does not replace legal complaint procedures or authorize an organization to exercise clinical, regulatory or judicial powers it does not possess.

Three Practical Tools for Implementation

The proposed pathway can be supported by three complementary tools: an Accessible Feedback and Complaints Pathway, a Complaint Handling and Escalation Register, and a Feedback-to-Improvement Review.

These resources are intended to help organizations translate good principles into workable arrangements. They are not statutory complaint forms, official investigation procedures, legally prescribed reporting instruments, accreditation requirements or certification schemes.

Accessible Feedback and Complaints Pathway

As an operational tool, the Accessible Feedback and Complaints Pathway should explain how older people, family members, supporters and relevant employees can raise concerns.

It should identify available channels, responsible contact persons, how concerns will be assessed and how people can receive information about progress.

The explanation should be understandable and accessible to those using the service.

It should distinguish ordinary service feedback from matters requiring urgent safeguarding, professional clinical review or formal legal escalation.

The pathway should also reflect specific statutory requirements where applicable, including notification-of-receipt obligations under consumer-protection law.

A residential facility may need an alternative contact when the concern involves the employee providing everyday assistance.

A home-care organization may need a way for clients to contact management without relying on the caregiver assigned to their visits.

A healthcare organization may need to coordinate service feedback with patient-rights procedures and regulated clinical responsibilities.

The pathway should be reviewed with people who may use it. A process that appears clear to management can still be difficult for someone with communication needs or limited digital access.

Its value lies in helping people understand how to raise concerns and what response they can reasonably expect.

Complaint Handling and Escalation Register

The Complaint Handling and Escalation Register helps management maintain oversight of concerns requiring follow-up.

Depending on the organization's functions, it may record when the concern was received, its nature, initial assessment, the responsible reviewer, relevant actions and current status.

It should distinguish acknowledgment, assessment, review, communication of findings and completion of corrective action.

These are different stages.

A complaint may have received a response while the underlying service problem remains unresolved.

Another concern may have been referred to an external authority while the organization still has responsibilities to protect residents or improve its own services.

The register should not automatically mark such matters as resolved simply because a response or referral has been made.

Records should also distinguish allegations from confirmed findings.

Access to identifiable information must remain appropriately restricted.

Where separate clinical, safeguarding, regulatory or statutory records are required, the register should complement rather than replace them.

The tool should also allow the organization to identify the applicable timeframe or legal process for a particular complaint where necessary, rather than applying one generic deadline to every case.

Its purpose is to make responsibility and follow-up visible while respecting the organization's legal obligations.

Feedback-to-Improvement Review

The Feedback-to-Improvement Review examines whether the organization is learning from concerns and feedback.

Management may periodically assess the issues being raised, how they were handled, whether agreed actions were completed and whether similar problems recur.

The review should not focus only on the total number of complaints.

Several apparently minor concerns about communication may indicate a wider problem with how residents and families receive information.

Repeated complaints involving the same service arrangement may suggest that earlier corrective actions did not address the underlying cause.

Positive feedback can also identify practices that deserve to be maintained or extended.

The review may incorporate staff observations and older people's experiences where appropriate, while protecting personal information.

An improvement action should have a responsible person and a reasonable way to determine whether the intended change has occurred.

The objective is to connect what people report with demonstrable improvement, without losing sight of the individual concern that prompted the review.

Measuring Complaints Management Without Rewarding Silence

Complaint counts can be misleading when interpreted alone.

An organization receiving very few complaints may be providing excellent care. It may also have channels that people cannot access or do not trust.

An increase in recorded complaints may suggest deteriorating performance, but it may also reflect better awareness and greater confidence in speaking up.

For these reasons, the lowest complaint count should not automatically be treated as the best performance.

Organizations may examine whether people know how to raise concerns, whether complaints receive appropriate acknowledgment, whether serious matters are escalated correctly and whether responses meet applicable requirements or reasonable organizational timeframes.

They may also review whether corrective actions are implemented and whether similar problems recur.

The quality of the response is important.

A complaint closed within an internal target may leave the underlying problem unresolved. Another may require more time because professional assessment or legal review is necessary.

Administrative closure should therefore be distinguished from substantive follow-up.

Feedback from complainants may help determine whether the process was accessible, respectful and understandable.

However, complainant satisfaction should not be treated as proof that the findings were correct or that every requested outcome should have been granted.

People may remain dissatisfied even when a matter has been handled fairly and appropriately.

Similarly, a high percentage of complaints marked as resolved may be misleading if complainants have been pressured to accept the organization's position.

Measurement should combine process reliability, fairness, appropriate safety responses and evidence that identified service problems have been addressed.

The objective is not to minimize the number of complaints. It is to ensure that concerns can be raised, are handled appropriately and contribute to better care.

Turning Feedback Into Organizational Learning

The value of complaints management extends beyond individual cases when organizations examine what recurring concerns reveal.

Different people may describe the same underlying problem in different ways.

One resident may report that staff are often unavailable. A family member may complain about poor communication. An employee may describe unclear responsibilities during busy periods.

These experiences may be connected to a shared operational weakness.

A useful review considers possible underlying causes without assuming that every complaint has the same explanation.

The organization may need to examine staffing, communication practices, service expectations, supervision or the way work is coordinated.

Where improvements are introduced, management should determine whether they have been implemented and whether the expected change occurred.

Publishing a new policy does not establish that staff understand or follow it.

Similarly, reminding employees to communicate more effectively may have little impact if the organization has not addressed the conditions contributing to the problem.

Improvement actions should therefore be practical, assigned to an appropriate person and subject to follow-up.

Where suitable, organizations can also communicate general improvements to residents, families and staff without disclosing confidential information.

People may be more willing to provide feedback when they can see that it leads to meaningful consideration and change.

The objective is to build a visible connection between what people experience and how care services improve.

Applying the Approach Across Older-Person Care Settings in Viet Nam

Older-person care in Viet Nam includes healthcare organizations, home-based services, community programs, residential long-term care and social assistance facilities.

These services operate through different legal and organizational arrangements.

A residential care facility may need complaints channels that residents can use independently of the staff providing daily assistance.

A home-care provider may need a way for older people to contact management when the caregiver is not present or when the concern involves the assigned worker.

A community-based day-care program may need arrangements suitable for people attending for limited periods who may rely on family members for transport or communication.

A healthcare organization must consider the patient rights, professional responsibilities and procedures applicable to medical examination and treatment.

These differences matter.

A complaints system designed for a hospital should not automatically be copied into a nonclinical social assistance facility. Likewise, detailed Australian aged care procedures should not be presented as legally applicable to Vietnamese providers without a corresponding domestic legal basis.

Organizations can nevertheless begin with practical improvements.

Management can examine whether people know how to raise concerns, whether an alternative contact is available and whether staff understand which matters require escalation.

The organization can review recent complaints and determine whether responses were communicated and promised actions completed.

It can also ask older people and families whether the current channels are understandable and comfortable to use.

Sophisticated technology is not always necessary.

A small care provider may improve considerably by identifying a responsible contact person, establishing a secure record and following a consistent process for acknowledgment, review and follow-up.

A larger organization may need more formal coordination across departments, service locations and management levels.

Regardless of size, the process should reflect the provider's lawful functions and actual capabilities.

For organizations within the scope of Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, the relevant operating and management requirements should be considered alongside other applicable obligations.

Where consumer-protection, healthcare, administrative or other laws apply, those requirements must be respected independently of any voluntary HLVN quality improvement approach.

The aim is to create a system that older people can use and organizations can operate reliably, while recognizing the different responsibilities associated with each care setting.

Conclusion: Complaints Should Lead to Fair Responses and Better Care

Older people and their families should not have to struggle to find someone willing to listen when they are concerned about care.

Nor should a complaint be considered successfully handled simply because it has been entered into a register or marked as closed.

Effective complaints management requires accessible communication, appropriate assessment, fair handling and clear responsibility for follow-up.

It also requires organizations to recognize when concerns involve immediate safety, professional responsibilities or legal matters beyond routine service feedback.

The proposed Accessible Feedback and Complaints Pathway, Complaint Handling and Escalation Register, and Feedback-to-Improvement Review offer practical ways to connect individual concerns with organizational accountability and improvement.

These tools do not replace legal rights, formal complaint procedures or professional obligations.

For healthcare and long-term care organizations in Viet Nam, their value lies in helping older people speak up, ensuring that concerns reach appropriate people and enabling management to identify where services need to improve.

An organization in which nobody complains is not necessarily an organization in which nobody experiences problems.

What matters is whether people can raise concerns without unnecessary barriers, receive fair consideration and see appropriate action when something needs to change.

High-quality older-person care should make it easier to speak up, respond fairly when concerns arise and use what people say to make care better.

Professional and Regulatory References

Viet Nam

Law on the Elderly No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended, including Consolidated Document No. 23/VBHN-VPQH dated February 26, 2026.

Law on Protection of Consumers' Rights No. 19/2023/QH15, effective July 1, 2024, as amended, including Consolidated Document No. 47/VBHN-VPQH dated March 17, 2026. Particularly relevant are Article 4 concerning consumer rights, Article 8 concerning vulnerable consumers, and Article 31 concerning the receipt and handling of consumer feedback, requests and complaints.

Government Decree No. 55/2024/ND-CP, detailing provisions of the Law on Protection of Consumers' Rights, as amended.

Ministry of Industry and Trade Consolidated Document No. 29/VBHN-BCT, dated April 13, 2026, concerning the decree detailing provisions of the Law on Protection of Consumers' Rights.

Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, as amended, particularly Article 14 concerning patients' rights to raise petitions and seek compensation under applicable legal provisions.

Government Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, dated October 23, 2026, on the operation and management of social assistance facilities, scheduled to take effect December 7, 2026, where applicable.

Law on Complaints No. 02/2011/QH13, as amended, including Consolidated Document No. 28/VBHN-VPQH dated March 13, 2026, concerning formal complaints within its statutory scope.

Law on Denunciations No. 25/2018/QH14, as amended, including Consolidated Document No. 29/VBHN-VPQH dated March 13, 2026, concerning legally defined denunciations and their handling within its statutory scope.

Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13, including applicable provisions concerning civil act capacity, representation, contracts and civil liability.

Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15, effective January 1, 2026.

Government Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, detailing provisions and implementation measures of the Law on Personal Data Protection, effective January 1, 2026.

Other requirements concerning social assistance services, medical examination and treatment, consumer protection, administrative procedures, professional conduct, employment matters and personal information must be determined according to the organization's legal status, services and individual circumstances.

International

Australian Government. Aged Care Act 2024 and Aged Care Rules 2025, including the Strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards applicable from November 1, 2025.

Australian Government. Aged Care Rules 2025, Standard 2: The Organisation, particularly Outcome 2.6a, Complaints and Feedback Management for Aged Care Workers, and Outcome 2.6b, Complaints and Feedback Management for Individuals.

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, Australia. Better Practice Guide to Complaints Handling in Aged Care Services, last updated July 28, 2025.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). People's Experience in Adult Social Care Services: Improving the Experience of Care and Support for People Using Adult Social Care Services, Guideline NG86 (2018).

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). People's Experience Using Adult Social Care Services, Quality Standard QS182 (2019), particularly Quality Statement 4, Using People's Views to Improve Services.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 10002:2018 — Quality Management — Customer Satisfaction — Guidelines for Complaints Handling in Organizations (2018; reviewed and confirmed in 2023).

World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. Promoting Quality Management in Long-Term Care: Principles, Key Components and Directions for Policy Action (2024).

United Nations. United Nations Principles for Older Persons (1991), particularly the principles concerning independence, participation, care and dignity.

About This Article

This article is published by Healthy Longevity Vietnam (HLVN) as an independent educational and quality improvement resource addressing accessible feedback, fair complaints handling and organizational learning in older-person care in Viet Nam.

The discussion focuses on practical approaches to improving feedback and complaints processes across healthcare, home-based, community and residential long-term care settings.

It distinguishes ordinary service feedback from serious safety concerns, safeguarding matters, regulated clinical issues and formal legal complaints or disputes. It does not establish procedures for investigating alleged criminal conduct, determining professional negligence, deciding compensation or exercising regulatory authority.

The proposed Accessible Feedback and Complaints Pathway, Complaint Handling and Escalation Register, and Feedback-to-Improvement Review are organizational quality improvement resources. They are not statutory complaint procedures, official investigation protocols, legally prescribed reporting instruments, accreditation requirements or certification schemes.

International legal requirements and professional guidance are provided for comparative and educational purposes. In particular, Australia's aged care complaints framework and the recommendations of NICE and ISO should not be interpreted as automatically applicable or legally mandatory for all healthcare and care organizations in Viet Nam.

This article does not constitute legal, clinical or regulatory advice, establish a universal complaint-resolution deadline, guarantee confidentiality in every circumstance, or determine legal rights, liability or available remedies in an individual case.

Where the Law on Protection of Consumers' Rights applies, organizations must observe its specific requirements, including the notification-of-receipt period under Article 31 and the provisions for qualifying vulnerable-consumer requests under Article 8. Other statutory deadlines, procedures and protections must also be followed where applicable.

Organizations must determine the requirements applicable to their legal status, services, personnel, contractual relationships and personal data processing. Matters involving suspected abuse, serious safety concerns, professional misconduct, consumer disputes or other legal issues require appropriate action under the applicable legal and professional framework.

HLVN does not act as a statutory complaints authority, legal representative, regulator or healthcare provider through publication of this article.

The purpose of this article is to support accessible communication, fair handling, appropriate accountability and evidence-informed quality improvement while respecting the rights, privacy, safety and dignity of older people.

Legal and professional context reviewed: October 27, 2026. Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026.