Managing Pet Visits in Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Resident Choice, Animal Health and Shared-Space Safety

Managing Pet Visits in Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Resident Choice, Animal Health and Shared-Space Safety

Age-Friendly Care Quality | Long-Term Care Quality

Last reviewed: November 4, 2026

An older woman living in a residential care facility has not seen her dog since moving there several months ago. Her family asks whether they can bring the dog for a short visit. She is delighted by the possibility. The animal has been part of her daily life for years, and seeing it again would help her maintain a familiar connection with home.

However, another resident is afraid of dogs and becomes uncomfortable when animals enter the shared lounge. A third resident has limited mobility and could be injured if a dog moves unexpectedly near their walking aid.

The facility wants to respect the first resident's wishes without making other people feel unsafe or excluded from their own living environment.

This is not necessarily a choice between allowing every pet visit and prohibiting animals altogether. It is a question of how a residential care organization can respond to individual preferences while managing foreseeable risks in a shared living environment.

For many older people, relationships with animals form part of their personal histories and everyday lives. A familiar pet may represent companionship, affection, routine, or a connection with family members and home. Others have little interest in animals or may experience fear, allergies, or discomfort when animals are nearby.

Pet visits can also introduce practical risks, including bites, scratches, falls, allergic reactions, and exposure to infections that can pass between animals and people. The animal's health, behavior, and ability to tolerate an unfamiliar environment matter as well.

For residential long-term care providers in Viet Nam, the challenge is to respect residents' preferences while maintaining appropriate safeguards for everyone affected by a visit, including the animal itself.

A thoughtful approach recognizes the personal meaning of animal contact without assuming that it is beneficial, safe, or appropriate for every resident.

A Familiar Pet Can Be Meaningful Without Being a Treatment

A familiar animal can occupy an important place in an older person's life. For someone who previously cared for a dog or cat every day, entering residential care may mean losing ordinary routines associated with that relationship. The person may miss greeting the animal in the morning, spending time together, or being responsible for its daily care.

A visit can offer an opportunity to reconnect with something familiar and personally meaningful. However, the value of that experience should be understood through the resident's own preferences rather than presented as a universal therapeutic benefit.

Some older people may enjoy watching an animal without touching it. Others may prefer brief contact or want to spend time privately with a familiar pet rather than participate in a group activity. A resident who has never lived with animals may find the same experience stressful or uninteresting.

These differences are important because ordinary pet visits are sometimes discussed alongside animal-assisted interventions, although they are not necessarily equivalent.

When family members bring a resident's dog for a visit, the primary purpose is usually to maintain a personal relationship. An organized animal-assisted activity may have structured recreational or well-being objectives, while animal-assisted therapy may involve defined therapeutic goals, qualified professionals, and a planned intervention.

These arrangements can involve different responsibilities, safeguards, and expectations concerning outcomes.

A residential care organization should not describe ordinary family pet visits as clinical treatment simply because residents may find them comforting.

The most appropriate starting point is to understand whether contact with an animal is something the individual resident values and whether the visit can be organized safely.

What Does the Scientific Evidence Actually Show?

Research into animal-assisted interventions among older adults has produced encouraging findings, but important uncertainties remain.

A systematic review and meta-analysis by Lv and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association in October 2026, examined 20 studies involving interventions with live animals or robotic animals. The review included 16 randomized controlled trials and four quasi-experimental studies.

Compared with control conditions, the researchers identified statistically significant pooled improvements in depressive symptoms and cognitive function. However, they did not find statistically significant pooled improvements in anxiety or loneliness.

The certainty of evidence was low for depressive symptoms and ranged from low to very low for the other outcomes. The authors emphasized the need for larger, well-designed studies to strengthen the evidence.

These findings help explain the growing interest in animal-related activities for older people, but they do not establish that informal pet visits produce the same effects.

The studies examined interventions with different characteristics, including various types of animals, structured activities, and different durations or levels of professional involvement. A brief visit from a familiar dog may differ substantially from an organized intervention delivered repeatedly over several weeks.

The inclusion of robotic animals also means that the pooled findings should not be interpreted as evidence concerning household pets alone.

Furthermore, statistically significant findings across a group of studies do not mean that every older person will experience an improvement. Differences in study design, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcome measurements also limit how broadly the results can be applied.

Someone may enjoy seeing a familiar animal because of a personal bond, even when no measurable clinical benefit can be established. Another resident may find similar enjoyment through music, gardening, conversation, or other meaningful activities.

For HLVN, the appropriate interpretation is that pet visits may support individual preferences and everyday quality of life when suitable. They should not be promoted as a proven treatment for depression, loneliness, dementia, or cognitive decline.

The decision to arrange a visit should remain grounded in the person's wishes, the nature of the proposed interaction, and the circumstances of the care environment.

Shared Living Means Considering Everyone's Preferences

Residential long-term care differs from living in a private home.

Residents may have their own rooms or personal spaces, but corridors, gardens, dining areas, lounges, and activity rooms are often shared. An activity that is enjoyable for one person may be uncomfortable or unsuitable for someone else.

A dog entering a shared lounge may be welcomed by several residents while causing distress to someone who has previously had a frightening experience with animals. A person with respiratory allergies may prefer to avoid enclosed spaces where a particular animal has been present.

Another resident may simply dislike animals and wish to use the facility without encountering them.

These preferences should not be dismissed because other people enjoy pet visits.

A relevant international example appears in the Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing's Guide to Aged Care Law, updated on February 2, 2026.

The guide describes a residential aged care home that permits family members to bring pets when visiting residents. One resident, Mr. Serrano, becomes distressed when animals are nearby. His discomfort leads him to avoid shared spaces and activities.

Rather than prohibiting all pet visits or requiring him to tolerate the animals, workers listen to his concerns. The provider establishes pet-free areas and gives him advance notice when animals may be present during particular activities.

The example demonstrates how a care organization can respond to an individual's concerns while preserving opportunities for other residents.

It is presented within Australia's aged care quality and feedback framework, particularly Standard 2. It does not establish a universal requirement for all care facilities to admit pets, nor does it create identical legal obligations for Vietnamese providers.

Its practical value lies in showing that different preferences can sometimes be accommodated without automatically treating one resident's wishes as more important than another's.

For residential care facilities in Viet Nam, possible arrangements may include agreeing on appropriate visiting areas, providing reasonable notice when animals will use shared spaces, or maintaining places where residents can avoid animal contact.

The most suitable approach depends on the building, residents' needs, and the facility's capabilities.

A resident who wishes to see a familiar pet should have their request considered fairly. Equally, someone who does not wish to encounter an animal should not feel pressured to participate simply because others welcome the visit.

Residents Should Have a Genuine Choice About Participation

The older person's wishes should be central to any proposed pet visit.

A family may believe that bringing an animal will make the resident happy, but that expectation should not replace the resident's own preference.

A person's relationship with an animal may have changed. Someone may feel uncomfortable around an energetic dog or prefer not to see a pet they can no longer care for independently. Conversely, a resident who rarely talks about their former home may show considerable interest when the possibility of seeing a familiar animal is raised.

These preferences should be explored respectfully.

Where residents can communicate clearly, workers should seek their views directly rather than rely solely on relatives.

Some residents may have cognitive impairment or difficulty communicating verbally. Their circumstances should be considered individually, without assuming that a diagnosis automatically removes their ability to express preferences.

A person may communicate enjoyment, hesitation, or discomfort through words, gestures, facial expressions, or other familiar forms of communication. Workers should pay attention to these responses, particularly when the resident has difficulty expressing a clear verbal choice.

An apparently positive response during one visit should not be treated as permanent agreement to all future interactions.

Someone who enjoys animal contact on one day may prefer not to participate on another. The ability to decline or end an interaction should be respected.

Likewise, family enthusiasm should not override clear indications that the resident is frightened, distressed, or uncomfortable.

Other residents who may encounter an animal unexpectedly in shared spaces also deserve consideration. A person should not be required to justify their preference for avoiding animals simply because an activity is popular.

A person-centered approach preserves both the opportunity to participate and the opportunity not to participate.

Animal Health Is Essential to Safe Visitation

A pet that is familiar and affectionate at home is not necessarily suitable for every residential care environment.

The animal's health, behavior, and ability to tolerate unfamiliar surroundings should be considered before a visit.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addresses animal contact in its Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities. The guidance discusses animal-assisted activities, animal-assisted therapy, and resident animal programs, including circumstances relevant to long-term care.

It emphasizes the importance of animals being healthy, appropriately vaccinated, clean, well-groomed, and free from signs of significant illness or infestation. It also highlights the need for supervision by people familiar with the animal's behavior.

These recommendations provide useful safety principles, although they were developed for healthcare settings and should not be presented as identical requirements for every residential social care facility in Viet Nam.

More recently, the UK Health Security Agency and Department of Health and Social Care published updated infection prevention and control guidance for adult social care on October 28, 2026.

The guidance includes a dedicated section on pets, animal contact, and avoiding pests.

For communal adult social care settings, it recommends that an identified person remain responsible for an animal. It also addresses vaccination, grooming, parasite control, animal illness, hygiene, and contact with people who may be particularly vulnerable to infection.

The guidance recommends that sick animals receive appropriate veterinary attention and should not return to a communal care environment until they have been appropriately assessed.

These principles are relevant when considering pet visits.

For dogs and cats, a residential facility should consider whether the animal has received legally required vaccination, appears healthy, can be managed safely, and is suitable for the proposed environment.

Relevant Vietnamese veterinary and animal-management requirements must be followed.

Depending on the circumstances, recent illness, parasites, skin conditions, behavior, or other health concerns may also need consideration.

However, a vaccination record does not guarantee that an animal presents no risk. Conversely, facilities should avoid requiring extensive veterinary testing or documentation without a reasonable basis related to the animal, intended visit, applicable law, or foreseeable exposure.

The objective is to make proportionate decisions rather than create unnecessary barriers to ordinary visits.

Infection Prevention Should Reflect the Actual Exposure

Contact between people and animals can create opportunities for microorganisms to spread.

Potential routes include contact with saliva, feces, urine, contaminated surfaces, and direct or indirect contact with infected animals. The risks depend on the animal, its health and behavior, the environment, the type of contact, and the circumstances of the people involved.

A healthy domestic pet visiting briefly under suitable supervision presents a different situation from an uncontrolled or visibly ill animal moving freely through a care facility.

CDC guidance identifies hand hygiene after animal contact as an important measure for reducing the potential transmission of infectious agents.

It also recommends limiting unnecessary contact with animal waste and maintaining appropriate separation between animals and areas where food or other sensitive activities are managed.

The United Kingdom's October 2026 guidance similarly emphasizes hand hygiene, keeping animals away from food-related areas, and avoiding contact between animals and open wounds.

These are practical principles for residential care providers to consider.

Residents who wish to touch an animal should have opportunities for appropriate hand hygiene afterward, with assistance where needed. Animals should not interfere with food preparation, medication-related activities, wound care, or other tasks where their presence creates avoidable contamination risks.

Some residents may require additional precautions because of their health conditions.

A person with significant immunosuppression, open wounds, or another medical vulnerability may face greater risks from particular animal exposures. These circumstances may warrant individual advice from a qualified healthcare professional.

The same consideration applies to allergies and respiratory sensitivities.

Someone may experience symptoms from animal dander even without direct contact. The facility may therefore need to consider where the visit takes place and whether cleaning, separation, or another appropriate arrangement is necessary afterward.

At the same time, older age alone should not be treated as proof that every person is at high risk from animal contact.

The relevant safeguards should reflect the actual visit and be incorporated into existing hygiene arrangements.

A brief, well-managed visit should not automatically trigger the same procedures that would be required for an animal-related infection incident or a formal animal-assisted clinical program.

The aim is to make contact reasonably safe without allowing infection prevention measures to become unnecessarily restrictive.

Animal Behavior and Welfare Are Closely Connected to Safety

An animal can be healthy and still behave unpredictably.

A residential care facility may contain unfamiliar sounds, smells, equipment, people, and movement patterns that affect an animal's behavior.

A dog may become excited when seeing its owner. A cat may become frightened when handled by unfamiliar people. An animal that is calm at home may react differently in a crowded lounge.

These situations can create risks for people with reduced balance, fragile skin, or limited mobility.

A sudden movement near a walking aid may contribute to a fall. An unexpected scratch may cause significant injury, especially in someone with delicate skin. Bites can also result in serious harm.

The CDC emphasizes suitable animal temperament, appropriate supervision, and precautions intended to reduce bites and scratches.

For occasional pet visits, the person bringing the animal should ordinarily remain responsible for controlling it throughout the visit, unless another lawful and appropriate arrangement has been expressly established.

An animal should not be left unattended with residents or allowed to move freely through shared spaces merely because it has behaved well previously.

The suitability of a visit may depend on the animal's temperament, activity level, response to unfamiliar people, and the ability of its handler to maintain control.

A large dog may require different arrangements from a smaller animal, but size alone is not a reliable measure of safety. Some small animals may be highly excitable, while larger animals may be calm and accustomed to controlled interactions.

The relevant question is whether the particular animal and handler are suitable for the proposed environment.

Animal welfare also deserves attention. A pet accustomed to a quiet home may find a busy residential facility stressful. Unfamiliar people may approach repeatedly, touch it without warning, or expect it to remain still for extended periods.

Some animals tolerate brief visits comfortably but become distressed when interactions continue too long.

The person responsible for the animal should understand its usual behavior and recognize when it needs a break or should leave. Depending on the species and duration of the visit, access to water, appropriate restraint, rest, and a suitable environment may be relevant.

Animal welfare and human safety are closely connected. A frightened, exhausted, or overstimulated animal may become less predictable and react defensively.

Care organizations should avoid treating a visiting animal as something to be passed between residents regardless of its behavior.

Residents should also understand that the animal may not welcome every form of contact. Workers should not assume that an older resident can safely hold a leash, lift an animal, or manage an excited pet without considering their abilities.

Where an animal shows signs of fear, agitation, distress, or loss of control, the interaction should be modified or ended as appropriate.

A successful visit is one that is meaningful or acceptable to the resident, manageable for the handler, and suitable for the animal.

Bites and Scratches Require Timely Attention

An animal-related injury should not be dismissed simply because it appears minor.

Bites and scratches may cause tissue damage, bacterial infection, and other complications. In relevant circumstances, they may also raise concerns about rabies exposure.

This is particularly important in Viet Nam, where rabies remains a public health concern.

The World Health Organization's Rabies fact sheet, updated on September 17, 2026, emphasizes that rabies is preventable through appropriate animal vaccination, avoidance of exposure, and timely post-exposure medical care.

WHO advises that a person bitten or scratched by a potentially rabid animal should immediately wash the wound thoroughly with soap and water for at least 15 minutes and seek prompt medical attention.

The need for rabies post-exposure prophylaxis, other treatment, or additional evaluation depends on the nature of the exposure, the animal's circumstances, local epidemiology, and clinical assessment.

A residential care provider should not independently conclude that a bite or scratch presents no significant risk simply because the animal appears healthy, is familiar to the resident, or has previously been vaccinated.

Where an injury occurs, the facility should ensure appropriate immediate assistance and timely medical assessment. Relevant information about the animal and circumstances should be made available to the responsible healthcare professionals.

Any applicable veterinary, public health, or competent-authority notification requirements must also be followed.

The organization should consider whether the animal can safely remain on the premises and whether further visits require reassessment.

Immediate protection and medical care should take priority over administrative review. Once the situation is appropriately managed, the facility can examine what happened and whether the visiting arrangements need to change.

The purpose is not to assume that every animal-related injury results from negligence. It is to protect the person, obtain necessary professional advice, and prevent avoidable recurrence.

Pet Visits, Animal-Assisted Programs, and Assistance Animals Are Different

Residential care providers may encounter several types of arrangements involving animals.

A family may bring a resident's dog for a short visit. A facility may consider keeping an animal permanently on the premises. An external organization may offer structured animal-assisted activities or therapy.

These arrangements are not interchangeable.

An occasional family visit ordinarily involves different responsibilities from maintaining a resident animal program.

A formal animal-assisted therapy program may involve defined clinical objectives, qualified professionals, structured activities, and appropriate oversight.

The CDC recognizes distinctions between animal-assisted activities, animal-assisted therapy, and resident animal programs in healthcare settings.

Supervision, animal health, infection prevention, and organizational responsibilities may differ according to the arrangement.

In Viet Nam, a facility should also distinguish optional family pet visits from circumstances involving an assistance animal used by a person with a disability.

These situations may raise different legal, accessibility, and service-related considerations. They should not automatically be treated as ordinary discretionary pet visits without examining the circumstances and applicable Vietnamese law.

International rules concerning service animals, including those applying in the United States, should not automatically be presented as legal entitlements in Viet Nam.

This article focuses on optional visits by domestic pets, particularly animals brought by residents' families or other authorized visitors.

It does not establish a permanent animal program, define a clinical animal-assisted therapy service, or determine the legal treatment of assistance animals.

Keeping these distinctions clear helps residential care providers assess the actual activity being proposed rather than apply a single approach to every situation involving an animal.

Viet Nam's Legal Framework for Dogs, Cats, and Animal Safety

Viet Nam has legal requirements concerning animal ownership, veterinary health, disease prevention, and responsibilities when animals cause harm.

The Law on Animal Husbandry No. 32/2018/QH14, as amended, includes specific provisions concerning the management of dogs and cats.

Article 66 establishes responsibilities for dog and cat owners. These include vaccination against rabies in accordance with veterinary legislation, reporting suspected rabies, maintaining safety for people and other animals, and ensuring appropriate environmental and veterinary hygiene.

The article also addresses the owner's responsibility to compensate for damage caused when dogs or cats attack, according to applicable law.

These provisions are relevant to people bringing dogs or cats into residential care environments.

The legal framework has been updated and consolidated during 2026.

Consolidated Document No. 148/2026/VBHN-LQ-VPQH, issued on September 25, 2026, provides an updated consolidated reference for the Law on Animal Husbandry.

The Law on Veterinary Medicine No. 79/2015/QH13, as amended, provides the broader framework concerning animal disease prevention, veterinary health, and related responsibilities.

Consolidated Document No. 153/2026/VBHN-LQ-VPQH, also issued on September 25, 2026, provides an updated reference for the Law on Veterinary Medicine.

These consolidated documents must be read carefully because they incorporate legislative amendments with different effective dates.

In particular, Law No. 21/2026/QH16, issued on August 24, 2026, contains amendments scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2027.

Those provisions must not be treated as already legally effective in November 2026 merely because they appear in consolidated documents issued earlier.

Government Decree No. 204/2026/ND-CP, issued on June 11, 2026, and effective August 1, 2026, regulates administrative penalties for specified violations in the veterinary sector.

Its provisions include failures concerning mandatory rabies vaccination and certain requirements for managing dogs in public places.

The application of public-place requirements depends on the actual legal circumstances. A residential care facility should not automatically assume that every part of its private premises is a public place for every regulatory purpose.

Where relevant public-place rules apply, animal owners and handlers must comply with them. Facilities may also establish reasonable visiting arrangements that provide appropriate control over animals within their premises, consistent with applicable law.

Additional requirements may arise under implementing regulations, local rules, and particular disease prevention circumstances.

However, the existence of animal ownership and veterinary requirements does not establish a universal legal right to bring pets into every residential long-term care facility in Viet Nam.

Nor does it establish that all such facilities must prohibit animal visits.

The Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended, provides a broader foundation for respecting older people's dignity, lawful choices, and participation in everyday life.

A resident's relationship with a pet may be personally significant and relevant to their quality of life. Nevertheless, that significance does not automatically override the rights of other residents or the facility's lawful responsibilities concerning safety and service management.

Decisions about admitting animals should therefore consider the facility's legal classification, service arrangements, premises, resident population, applicable agreements, and relevant animal health and safety requirements.

Where particular legal or veterinary questions remain uncertain, qualified professional advice or clarification from competent authorities may be necessary.

Clear Visiting Arrangements Help Balance Rights and Responsibilities

A residential care organization does not necessarily need a complex animal-management program to support occasional pet visits.

It does, however, need a practical understanding of how visits will be organized and who is responsible for the animal.

A proportionate arrangement may address whether visits need to be agreed upon in advance, which areas are suitable, how other residents' preferences will be considered, and who remains responsible for managing the animal.

The facility should also establish how concerns about animal health, hygiene, behavior, or unexpected incidents will be handled.

Responsibilities need to be clear to the person bringing the pet.

A visitor should not assume that care workers will supervise, feed, clean up after, or otherwise manage the animal unless an appropriate arrangement has been expressly established.

Similarly, staff should know whom to contact if an animal becomes distressed, uncontrolled, or appears unwell.

The location of a visit deserves attention.

A quiet private area may be suitable for one resident, while a crowded dining room or narrow corridor may create avoidable difficulties.

Where shared spaces are used, advance communication may help residents who prefer not to encounter animals.

The Australian example of maintaining pet-free areas illustrates one possible approach, but it is not necessarily the only suitable model.

Individual-room visits, designated visiting spaces, or other arrangements may be considered where appropriate, taking account of hygiene, accessibility, privacy, and the rights of people sharing the environment.

A visit that works well in one location may not be appropriate elsewhere in the same facility.

The organization should also consider how decisions are communicated. Residents and families are more likely to understand arrangements when the reasons are explained clearly and applied consistently.

A refusal or restriction should be grounded in relevant circumstances and lawful responsibilities rather than a general assumption that older people do not need contact with animals.

Equally, a resident who wishes to avoid animals should not be characterized as preventing others from enjoying an activity.

Care workers may help coordinate visits and ensure that suitable spaces are available. These activities are different from assuming responsibility for an animal's veterinary health or handling.

Employees without appropriate training should not be expected to restrain unfamiliar animals, diagnose veterinary conditions, or independently manage serious animal-related incidents.

Veterinary questions require suitable veterinary expertise. Clinical questions concerning residents' allergies, injuries, infection risks, or other health conditions may require qualified healthcare assessment.

Managers remain responsible for ensuring that visiting arrangements are appropriate for the organization's services and environment within its applicable legal and contractual obligations.

The goal is a predictable, respectful process that allows individual requests to be considered fairly without creating responsibilities that the organization or its workforce cannot safely fulfill.

Responding to Incidents and Concerns Should Lead to Learning

Even carefully organized visits may not always proceed as expected.

A resident may become frightened by an animal's movement. A dog may jump unexpectedly near someone using a walking aid. A visitor may disregard an agreed visiting area, or an animal may show signs of distress during the visit.

The organization's response should reflect the circumstances and potential consequences.

Where there is an immediate safety concern, appropriate steps should be taken to protect residents, workers, visitors, and the animal. An injury may require clinical assessment, while a suspected animal disease concern may require veterinary or public health advice.

The facility should also determine whether the visit can safely continue.

Once the immediate situation has been addressed, an appropriate review may help establish what happened and whether visiting arrangements need to change.

The purpose is not to assume that every incident requires permanently prohibiting pet visits. Equally, the facility should not ignore concerns simply because previous visits have been successful.

Repeated problems involving uncontrolled animal movement, inadequate supervision, hygiene, or disregard for residents' preferences may indicate that the current arrangements are unsuitable.

Feedback should also be considered from residents who did not participate directly.

For example, someone may report avoiding the shared lounge because animals frequently enter without notice. That concern is relevant to quality even if no bite, scratch, fall, or infection has occurred.

A useful review considers positive experiences alongside unintended consequences. It should also examine whether responsibilities were understood, safeguards worked, and corrective action is needed before further visits take place.

Measuring Quality Should Focus on Choice and Safety

A facility may be tempted to report the number of pet visits as evidence that it supports resident well-being.

However, visit counts alone reveal little about whether the arrangements are appropriate.

A large number of visits does not necessarily mean that residents are happier or that their preferences have been respected. Similarly, a facility with relatively few visits may be responding appropriately to residents' wishes or limitations in the environment.

More useful quality information concerns whether residents can express preferences, whether proposed visits are considered fairly, and whether arrangements work safely in practice.

The organization may review whether relevant animal-related risks have been recognized, responsibilities are understood, and concerns receive appropriate attention.

Incidents involving bites, scratches, falls, allergic reactions, or uncontrolled animal behavior may provide important safety information. Near misses and complaints can also reveal weaknesses.

A situation in which an animal is prevented from entering an unsuitable area may demonstrate that an existing safeguard worked. Repeated reports of discomfort from residents who wish to avoid animals may suggest that shared-space arrangements need improvement.

Interpretation matters.

A low incident rate does not necessarily establish that visits are safe if workers fail to recognize or report problems. Conversely, an increase in reported concerns may reflect greater confidence in speaking up rather than an actual deterioration in safety.

Quality review should also consider unintended effects on animal welfare and staff responsibilities.

Facilities should avoid collecting unnecessary personal or health information simply to demonstrate that residents enjoy contact with animals. Feedback can be voluntary, proportionate, and focused on the person's experience.

There is no single number of permitted visits, universal veterinary documentation package, or standardized pet-visitation performance indicator suitable for every residential care facility in Viet Nam.

Any measures adopted should reflect the service, animals involved, resident population, and applicable responsibilities.

International Standards Provide a Broader Quality Framework

ISO 25557:2026, Ageing Societies — Care Quality for Older Persons at Home and in Care Facilities, provides a relevant international reference for person-centered residential care.

Published in March 2026, the standard specifies requirements and recommendations for the provision of health and social care services for older people at home and in care facilities.

Its principles emphasize individual needs and preferences, self-determination, participation, safety, security, and organizational accountability.

These considerations are relevant to decisions about pet visits because residential care organizations must balance individual choice with the needs of others living in a shared environment.

A resident's wish to maintain contact with a familiar animal can be considered as part of their personal preferences and everyday well-being. At the same time, other residents should be able to use shared spaces safely and comfortably.

However, ISO 25557 does not establish a specific pet-visitation program, veterinary standard, or universal requirement to admit animals into residential care facilities.

It does not replace Vietnamese legislation, veterinary requirements, or appropriate health and safety assessment.

Similarly, the Australian aged care quality example and the CDC and United Kingdom infection prevention guidance provide useful reference points within their respective regulatory systems.

For Viet Nam, international experience can inform organizational decisions without being presented as automatically binding domestic requirements.

The appropriate approach is to respect individual preferences while maintaining clear responsibilities and safeguards suited to the actual circumstances.

Making Room for Meaningful Visits Without Compromising Safety

Pet visits may appear to be a small part of residential long-term care, but they raise important questions about how an organization understands quality of life.

A familiar animal may bring pleasure, reassurance, or a sense of connection to one resident. Another person may experience anxiety, discomfort, or a genuine health concern when animals are nearby.

Both experiences deserve respect.

The decision should not be based on an assumption that animal contact benefits everyone or that avoiding animals is unreasonable.

A good residential care environment recognizes that people have different histories, preferences, and needs.

For organizations in Viet Nam, this means considering whether a visit can be arranged in a way that respects the resident who wants contact, protects those who do not, and ensures that the animal is healthy, appropriately managed, and treated humanely.

It also means recognizing important boundaries.

A family pet visit is not automatically a therapeutic intervention. A vaccinated and apparently healthy animal does not eliminate every safety risk. A resident's personal preference does not override the rights of others in shared spaces.

Equally, the existence of potential risks does not necessarily mean that every pet visit must be prohibited.

The appropriate response depends on the residents, the animal, the environment, and the organization's applicable responsibilities.

Where visits are feasible, proportionate arrangements can preserve meaningful personal connections while maintaining safety and accountability.

The aim is not to introduce animals into every residential care facility or require every resident to participate. It is to ensure that requests involving pets are considered thoughtfully, implemented responsibly, and reviewed when circumstances change.

Good pet-visitation arrangements are not measured by how many animals enter a care facility. They are reflected in whether residents' choices are respected, animal health and welfare are considered, and everyone can continue to feel safe and comfortable in a place they call home.

Key References and Regulatory Context

Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. (2026). Guide to Aged Care Law: Aged Care Quality Standards. Case study concerning pet visits, resident feedback, and pet-free areas. Updated February 2, 2026.

UK Health Security Agency and Department of Health and Social Care. (2026). Why Infection Prevention and Control Matters in Adult Social Care. Section: Pets, Animal Contact and Avoiding Pests. Published October 28, 2026.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States. (2003; online section reviewed and updated subsequently). Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities. Section H: Animals in Health-Care Facilities.

Lv, J., Li, Z., Qin, R., Miao, B., Gong, L., Song, C., et al. (2026). Animal-Assisted Interventions Involving Live and Robotic Animals for Depression, Anxiety, Loneliness, and Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 27(10), 106367. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2026.106367.

World Health Organization. (2026). Rabies. Fact sheet updated September 17, 2026.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2018). Law on Animal Husbandry No. 32/2018/QH14, as amended. Particularly Article 66 concerning the management of dogs and cats.

Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2026). Consolidated Document No. 148/2026/VBHN-LQ-VPQH — Law on Animal Husbandry. Issued September 25, 2026.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2015). Law on Veterinary Medicine No. 79/2015/QH13, as amended and applicable.

Office of the National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2026). Consolidated Document No. 153/2026/VBHN-LQ-VPQH — Law on Veterinary Medicine. Issued September 25, 2026.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2026). Law No. 21/2026/QH16 Amending and Supplementing Certain Provisions of Ten Laws Relating to Administrative Procedures and Business Conditions in the Agriculture and Environment Sector. Issued August 24, 2026; effective January 1, 2027.

Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 204/2026/ND-CP on Administrative Penalties for Violations in the Veterinary Sector. Issued June 11, 2026; effective August 1, 2026.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2009). Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended and applicable.

International Organization for Standardization. (2026). ISO 25557:2026 — Ageing Societies — Care Quality for Older Persons at Home and in Care Facilities. Published March 2026.

About Healthy Longevity Vietnam

Healthy Longevity Vietnam (HLVN) is a VietnamWellcare initiative focused on improving the quality, integration, and practical implementation of care for older people in Viet Nam. Through evidence-informed approaches, quality improvement, measurement, and collaboration, HLVN supports safer, more person-centered, better coordinated, and more responsive care across healthcare, home, community, and long-term care settings.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for general educational, resident rights awareness, animal-related safety, quality improvement, and organizational development purposes. It does not constitute individualized medical, veterinary, or legal advice; a mandatory national pet-visitation policy; an animal-assisted therapy protocol; a veterinary health certification procedure; or an accreditation or certification requirement for residential care facilities in Viet Nam.

Decisions to permit or restrict animal visits must be considered according to a facility's legal status, service model, premises, resident population, relevant agreements, applicable Vietnamese legislation, and local requirements. This article does not establish a universal legal right to bring pets into every residential care facility or a general legal obligation to prohibit them.

Animal owners and handlers remain subject to relevant legal obligations concerning vaccination, animal health, safety, disease prevention, environmental hygiene, and liability. Facility-specific visiting arrangements do not replace statutory responsibilities.

The hygiene, supervision, visiting-area, animal health, and incident-management practices discussed are examples of evidence-informed organizational safeguards. They should not be interpreted as identical mandatory procedures applicable to all providers, animals, or care environments.

Pet visits should not be presented as clinically proven treatment for depression, dementia, loneliness, cognitive decline, or other health conditions. The scientific evidence concerning structured animal-assisted interventions, including research involving robotic animals, cannot automatically be applied to informal visits involving family pets.

Bites, scratches, suspected rabies exposure, allergic reactions, and other potentially serious incidents require appropriate professional assessment and any reporting or notification prescribed by Vietnamese law. This article is not a substitute for individualized medical assessment, rabies post-exposure management, veterinary care, or facility-specific emergency and incident-response procedures.

Requirements concerning dogs and cats, their owners, and the use of public or private premises must be determined according to the applicable circumstances. Consolidated legal documents issued in 2026 include amendments with different effective dates. Provisions scheduled to take effect in 2027 must not be treated as legally effective on the review date of this article.

The distinction between family pet visits, permanent animal programs, formal animal-assisted interventions, and assistance animals should be maintained. Each arrangement may involve different operational, professional, accessibility, veterinary, and legal considerations.

International research, ISO 25557:2026, Australian aged care guidance, CDC recommendations, and United Kingdom infection prevention guidance are presented as reference points for education and quality improvement. They do not automatically create binding legal, clinical, veterinary, operational, or accreditation obligations for residential care providers in Viet Nam.

Healthy Longevity Vietnam is an educational and quality improvement initiative of VietnamWellcare. It is not a government regulator, veterinary authority, healthcare provider, residential care operator, or accreditation or certification authority.

Organizations should develop locally appropriate arrangements based on their services and circumstances, consulting qualified veterinary, healthcare, infection prevention, facility management, legal, and other relevant professionals or competent authorities where necessary.

Information and regulatory context reviewed as of November 4, 2026.