Preventing and Responding to Unexplained Absences from Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Individualized Risk Planning, Timely Search and Safe Escalation

Preventing and Responding to Unexplained Absences from Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Individualized Risk Planning, Timely Search and Safe Escalation

An older man is not in the dining room when residents gather for lunch at a long-term care facility. A care worker checks his room, then the garden and nearby communal areas. No one has seen him recently. A colleague thinks he may have gone out with a relative, but nobody can confirm this.

There may be a simple explanation. Perhaps he is visiting someone, spending time alone or following a familiar routine. But he could also have become disoriented, fallen somewhere out of sight or left the premises without knowing how to return.

The difficulty is that staff do not yet know which explanation is correct. Their response may depend on details that are easy to overlook: when he was last reliably seen, whether he usually goes out independently, whether he has any urgent health needs and what hazards exist nearby.

An unexplained absence is not simply a matter of building security. It is a situation in which uncertainty about a resident's whereabouts may become a threat to their safety. Responding well requires preparation, reliable communication and the ability to act without unnecessary delay.

For residential long-term care services in Viet Nam, the challenge is to build these safeguards while respecting older people's dignity, preferences and freedom of movement. A care facility should be somewhere people can live safely, not somewhere they are automatically prevented from leaving.

Understanding When an Absence Becomes a Safety Concern

Living in residential care does not mean that an older person must remain inside the facility throughout the day. Some residents continue to visit friends, attend religious activities, shop locally or take regular walks. Others leave with relatives or caregivers for appointments and family events.

These activities are part of ordinary life. They should not be treated as safety incidents merely because they occur outside the facility.

A concern arises when a resident cannot be located as reasonably expected and there is insufficient reliable information to establish whether they are safe. The significance of that uncertainty depends on the individual and the circumstances.

Consider two residents who have not returned at their usual time. One regularly visits a nearby shop, communicates independently and has no known difficulty finding the way home. The other has recently experienced episodes of disorientation, requires time-sensitive medication and may be exposed to heavy traffic outside the facility. Both situations deserve attention, but they may call for different levels of urgency.

An absence may also become concerning after an initially understood departure. A resident might leave for a scheduled appointment but fail to return, become unreachable or be reported missing by an accompanying person.

The central question is not simply whether someone has left without informing staff. It is whether the available information provides reasonable assurance of their safety.

Staff should avoid treating an unverified explanation as a confirmed fact. A suggestion that a relative may have collected someone does not establish that the person is safe. Equally, a resident who is known to be away by choice and is not otherwise at risk should not automatically be treated as missing.

The response should reflect the information available at the time and remain open to reassessment as new facts emerge. An absence that initially appears harmless can become concerning when expected contact fails or new information suggests that the person may be in danger.

The Legal and Regulatory Context in Viet Nam

Viet Nam's Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended, provides an important foundation for respecting the rights and interests of older people. The consolidated text issued as No. 23/VBHN-VPQH on February 26, 2026, reflects relevant legislative amendments.

The law recognizes rights concerning basic living needs, healthcare, personal living arrangements and participation in social activities. These protections remain relevant when a person receives residential care.

Entering a care facility does not automatically remove a person's autonomy or give the provider unrestricted authority to control their movements. Decisions about supervision, assistance and restrictions must be considered in light of the person's legal rights, individual circumstances and applicable law.

Civil act capacity is also a legal matter that should not be confused with a clinical diagnosis. Dementia, disability or occasional confusion does not, by itself, establish that a person has legally lost the ability to make decisions. Where limitations on civil act capacity, difficulties in cognition and behavioral control, guardianship or representation are relevant, providers must respect the applicable provisions of Viet Nam's Civil Code and any relevant court decisions.

At the same time, residential providers have responsibilities arising from their legal status, applicable regulations, contractual commitments and the care services they undertake to provide.

As of November 1, 2026, Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP remains part of the regulatory framework governing social assistance facilities, subject to relevant amendments and related legal provisions.

An important regulatory change is approaching. Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, issued on October 23, 2026, will take effect on December 7, 2026, replacing Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP.

The new decree governs the operation and management of social assistance facilities, including specified categories of long-term care services for older people.

Article 9 establishes general requirements concerning the physical environment, facilities, personnel and processes for providing social assistance services. These include collecting information, assessing individual needs, preparing care and assistance plans, implementing those plans, reviewing progress and maintaining appropriate records.

Article 10 and the accompanying appendices establish additional requirements for different categories of facilities. In particular, Appendix II addresses specified long-term care facilities for older people and persons with disabilities, including requirements concerning personnel and continuous professional duty arrangements.

Article 19 provides for periodic and extraordinary reporting on facility operations to competent authorities. These provisions do not, however, establish a Vietnamese reporting system identical to Australia's Serious Incident Response Scheme or a universal notification deadline specifically for every unexplained absence.

Article 21 sets out transitional arrangements. Social assistance facilities established and licensed under Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP before the new decree takes effect may continue operating without submitting the initial activity notification required under Article 11. They have two years from the effective date to review their operations, meet the applicable new requirements and report the results to the competent authority, subject to the decree's provisions.

These requirements are relevant to organizations reviewing their safety arrangements. Their precise application depends on the provider's legal status, facility category, activities and services. A residential provider should not assume that every requirement or transitional provision applies identically to all care settings.

Another legal distinction concerns the meaning of a missing person. Article 68 of Viet Nam's Civil Code addresses a court declaration of missing status following prolonged disappearance and the prescribed legal process. This is separate from the operational response required when a care facility cannot locate a resident who may be in danger.

The civil-law procedure does not establish a waiting period before staff can contact police or seek urgent assistance.

In practice, residential providers need to understand both their legal obligations and the immediate safety concerns arising from a particular situation. Neither should be confused with the other.

Learning From International Approaches Without Importing Foreign Legal Requirements

Australia provides an established example of how unexplained absences are incorporated into formal aged-care incident management.

Under the Australian Aged Care Act 2024 and Aged Care Rules 2025, which introduced relevant changes from November 1, 2025, an unexplained absence may constitute a reportable incident when the prescribed circumstances are met.

For an individual receiving funded aged-care services in an approved residential care home, the relevant definition concerns an absence from the home in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to report the absence to police.

Reportable unexplained absences fall within the Priority 1 category. Under the applicable notification rules, the registered provider must notify the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission within 24 hours of becoming aware of the reportable incident, subject to the relevant provisions and exceptions.

The Australian framework places unexplained absences within a broader system of incident management, organizational accountability and regulatory oversight. Its requirements are specific to Australian law and should not be presented as existing Vietnamese reporting obligations.

England offers a complementary perspective. The Home Office's 2021 Multi-agency Response for Adults Missing from Health and Care Settings provides a good-practice framework for cooperation among health services, care organizations, police and other relevant agencies.

The College of Policing's Missing Persons: Authorised Professional Practice, revised in July 2026, emphasizes safeguarding, structured risk assessment and continuing reassessment as new information becomes available.

These approaches recognize that an unexplained absence rarely follows a predictable sequence. Information obtained during the search may change the level of concern. A previously reassuring explanation may become doubtful, or a high-risk situation may require external assistance before internal enquiries are complete.

Another useful example is the Herbert Protocol, used by police services in the United Kingdom. It encourages the preparation of essential information about a person at risk of becoming missing, particularly someone living with dementia, so that relevant details are available quickly if a search becomes necessary.

The information may include a recent photograph, medication details, communication needs, daily routines and places that are important to the person.

The Herbert Protocol is not a Vietnamese reporting mechanism, and the English multi-agency framework is not a regulatory standard for residential facilities in Viet Nam.

Their value lies in the underlying principles: prepare before an incident, understand individual circumstances, coordinate responsibilities, involve appropriate authorities and learn from what happened.

International experience provides useful guidance, but local procedures must be developed within Viet Nam's legal and service environment.

Understanding Individual Risk Before an Emergency Occurs

People living in the same residential facility may have very different abilities, preferences and support needs.

One resident may regularly travel alone without difficulty. Another may navigate familiar areas safely but become confused in unfamiliar surroundings. Someone else may require assistance because of limited mobility, visual impairment or difficulties communicating.

Risk can also change over time. Recent illness, hospitalization, medication changes, sensory impairment or changes in cognitive functioning may affect a person's ability to manage an unfamiliar environment. Moving into residential care can itself create temporary difficulties because the building, neighborhood and daily routines are new.

These circumstances deserve attention, but they should not lead to blanket assumptions about older people or those living with particular medical conditions.

An individualized assessment should explore how the person normally moves around, where they like to go, how they communicate, what assistance they prefer and whether there are situations in which they may have difficulty returning safely.

It can also be useful to understand the person's previous home, workplace, places of worship or other meaningful destinations. Someone who becomes disoriented may attempt to reach a familiar place rather than move randomly.

Family members and trusted contacts can contribute valuable information about past routines and preferences. Their involvement should complement, rather than automatically replace, the resident's own wishes and legally recognized choices.

Where a foreseeable risk exists, the care plan can describe practical support arrangements. These might include assistance with unfamiliar routes, agreed check-in arrangements, accompaniment for particular activities or additional attention following a change in health status.

For someone at significant risk of becoming lost, the provider may consider maintaining an emergency information profile. Subject to applicable data protection requirements, this could contain a recent photograph, identifying details, preferred name, communication needs, important health considerations and likely destinations.

Preparing this information in advance can reduce avoidable delays during an emergency. It should be stored securely, kept current and made available only to appropriately authorized people for legitimate purposes.

Individual risk planning should also be reviewed following significant changes in the person's health, functioning, behavior or living circumstances.

A care plan that was suitable when someone first entered the facility may no longer reflect their abilities several months later. Conversely, a person who needed close support during an illness may regain enough independence to resume familiar activities.

The purpose of planning is to support safe participation in ordinary life. It should not turn a resident's wish to go outside into a problem that the organization attempts to eliminate.

Making Everyday Communication Reliable

An apparent disappearance sometimes begins with an ordinary communication failure.

A resident leaves for an appointment, but the expected return time is not updated. A family member collects someone during a shift change, and the information does not reach the evening team. A worker assumes that a resident is resting, although nobody has confirmed their location.

These situations can create unnecessary alarm. More seriously, they can delay recognition when a person is genuinely at risk.

Residential providers need practical ways of communicating planned outings, expected returns, appointments, transfers and relevant changes. The arrangements should reflect each resident's needs, autonomy and agreed care plan.

A person who moves independently should not automatically be required to obtain permission for every departure. Where it is appropriate to agree on how staff will know that someone is safe, this should be approached as a supportive arrangement rather than a blanket restriction.

Good handovers matter. Incoming staff should know which residents are expected to be away, which arrangements have changed and whether anyone requires follow-up.

The physical environment also influences safety. Clear signs, recognizable landmarks, accessible pathways and understandable layouts can help residents orient themselves. Gardens and outdoor areas should support meaningful use while reducing foreseeable hazards.

Access arrangements require careful consideration. Poorly managed entrances can make it difficult to establish when someone has left, but indiscriminate locking of doors or the use of physical barriers can create other risks.

Any access-control measures must remain consistent with applicable fire safety, emergency evacuation, accessibility and residents' rights requirements.

Technology may help, but it should not replace communication between people. An electronic entry record is of limited value if staff cannot interpret it, and a door alarm offers little protection when nobody has clear responsibility for responding.

Reliable everyday arrangements make it easier to distinguish normal independence from a situation that genuinely requires urgent attention.

Responding When a Resident Cannot Be Located

Once a potentially concerning absence is recognized, staff need to establish the facts promptly while considering whether immediate escalation is necessary.

Initial enquiries may involve checking the resident's usual locations, speaking with relevant colleagues and verifying known appointments or outings. The last reliable sighting, rather than an assumption about where the person should be, provides a useful starting point.

A senior worker or designated coordinator should take responsibility for organizing the response as soon as the situation warrants it.

That person needs to establish what is known, identify possible immediate risks, allocate tasks and maintain communication among those involved. The process becomes less reliable when several workers make overlapping enquiries without knowing what others have already checked.

A structured search may include bedrooms, bathrooms, communal spaces, accessible outdoor areas and other locations where the resident could reasonably be. Particular attention may be needed in places where someone could have fallen, become trapped, been unable to call for help or remained out of view.

Search activities must be conducted safely. Workers should not enter hazardous areas or undertake actions beyond their training or available resources.

Where appropriate, safe checks of nearby locations can begin while information is gathered. Staff involved in searching should maintain contact with the coordinator, and the facility must preserve adequate care and supervision for residents who remain on site.

The order of these activities should not be treated as a rigid checklist that must be completed before further help can be requested.

For a resident with an urgent medical need, severe disorientation or a credible risk of injury, waiting for every internal location to be searched could create unnecessary danger.

The organization should therefore assess risk from the beginning and continue reassessing it throughout the response.

Information about the weather, nearby roads, water hazards, elapsed time since the last reliable sighting, mobility and health status may materially change the urgency of the situation.

A resident who was initially believed to be nearby may require a different response if enquiries fail to establish their location or new information suggests that they are exposed to danger.

The most useful procedure is one that supports clear judgment under pressure. It helps staff organize the search without preventing them from acting immediately when the circumstances demand it.

Knowing When and How to Escalate

One of the most consequential decisions is when to request assistance outside the care facility.

There should be no assumption that staff must wait a fixed number of hours before contacting police when there is credible concern for a resident's safety.

In Viet Nam, police emergency assistance can be requested through 113, while emergency medical assistance is available through 115.

The national emergency hotline 112 also receives information about incidents, natural disasters, disasters and other urgent situations requiring assistance, including relevant rescue circumstances. The system operates under national arrangements for receiving and coordinating emergency information, including connections with other emergency services.

For a resident who may be missing and at risk, the provider should contact the appropriate police service promptly. Where urgent medical assistance or rescue is required, the relevant emergency service should also be contacted without delay.

Facilities should maintain verified local contact information and establish practical arrangements for communication with emergency responders and competent authorities.

When seeking assistance, staff should be prepared to explain who is missing, when and where they were last reliably seen, what they were wearing if known, possible destinations and which enquiries have already been undertaken.

Information about communication difficulties, mobility limitations, urgent medication needs or other relevant health circumstances may help responders understand the risk. Such information should be shared for a justified purpose and in accordance with applicable legal requirements.

Responsibility should not become unclear once police or other emergency services are involved.

The care provider still needs an identified coordinator who can communicate new information, organize staff, maintain an accurate record of developments and support the response.

Records should distinguish confirmed information from assumptions. Significant decisions, communications and actions should be documented as accurately as circumstances permit.

The provider should also avoid assuming that locating someone automatically means they can or must be returned to the facility against their wishes.

If a resident is found and expresses a decision not to return, the response requires careful consideration of their safety, legal rights, decision-making circumstances and any safeguarding concerns.

Where there is an immediate threat, suspected coercion or uncertainty about legal authority, appropriate professional or official assistance may be necessary.

The aim is to protect the person through lawful and proportionate action, not to treat every departure as unauthorized.

Working With Families and Trusted Contacts

Families can be important partners when a resident's whereabouts are uncertain.

A relative may know that the person recently spoke about visiting a former home, attending a familiar event or meeting someone nearby. A trusted contact may also be able to communicate in a way that helps the resident feel safe.

This information can be valuable during an urgent response, but family involvement requires judgment.

Not every resident wishes all relatives to receive information about their movements or personal circumstances. A family relationship does not automatically provide unrestricted authority over the person's decisions.

Providers should consider the resident's recorded preferences, applicable legal arrangements, the relevance of the information being shared and any safeguarding concerns.

There may also be situations in which contacting a particular individual could increase risk. If there are credible concerns about abuse, intimidation, coercion or exploitation, the usual communication arrangements may need to change.

When families are contacted, staff should communicate clearly and factually. They should explain what is known, what remains uncertain and which actions are being taken.

Speculation can create confusion and unnecessary distress. Early statements about fault, intention or the cause of the absence should be avoided until there is sufficient reliable information.

The same principle applies once the person is found. Appropriate contacts should receive relevant updates, but personal information should not be disclosed more widely than necessary.

Protecting Personal Information During a Search

An unexplained absence may require rapid access to photographs, contact details, health information or records of a resident's recent movements.

The urgency of finding someone does not remove the provider's obligations to protect personal information.

Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, both effective from January 1, 2026, establish important requirements concerning personal data processing and protection.

Article 19 of the law recognizes specified circumstances in which personal data may be processed without the data subject's consent. These include certain urgent situations involving the protection of life, health and other legally protected interests.

The applicability of such an exception depends on the circumstances and must be supported by the safeguards and accountability required by law.

Importantly, an exception permitting personal data processing without consent does not automatically authorize its public disclosure.

Article 16 separately regulates the public disclosure of personal data, including the permitted grounds, purpose and scope. Its specific reference to point b, clause 1 of Article 19 should not be interpreted as extending public disclosure automatically to every circumstance covered by Article 19.

Sharing necessary information with police during an urgent search and publishing a resident's photograph or health details on social media are therefore distinct legal considerations.

A facility should prepare an appropriate approach to emergency information sharing before an incident occurs. Staff need to understand who may access relevant records, who has responsibility for authorizing disclosure, what information is necessary and how disclosures should be documented.

Publishing a photograph through public websites or messaging groups should not become an automatic first response. Any such decision requires an applicable legal basis, consideration of necessity and proportionality, appropriate safeguards and coordination with competent authorities where relevant.

The use of surveillance cameras, movement sensors and location-tracking devices also requires care.

Such technologies may support a properly designed individual risk plan, but they do not justify continuous or indiscriminate monitoring. Nor should they be treated as substitutes for adequate staffing, communication and professional judgment.

Facilities should consider why monitoring is necessary, where it takes place, who can access the information, how long records are retained and how residents' privacy and dignity are protected.

Good preparation makes it more likely that essential information can be used promptly during an emergency without exposing residents to unnecessary intrusion.

When the Resident Is Found

Locating a missing resident is an important relief, but the response should not end with confirmation of their whereabouts.

The person may have fallen, sustained an injury, experienced dehydration or heat exposure, missed essential medication or become distressed. Some consequences may not be immediately apparent.

Staff should assess the circumstances and the person's condition, arrange emergency medical assistance when necessary and seek assessment by an appropriately qualified professional when indicated.

A resident who appears physically well may still require attention if they were exposed to significant risk, experienced a possible fall or cannot explain what happened.

Where police, emergency services or other external agencies were involved, they should be informed promptly that the person has been located, together with any relevant developments.

The resident's experience deserves equal attention.

Someone who became lost may be frightened or exhausted. Another person may have left intentionally and feel frustrated that staff were searching for them. A resident who had a disagreement or felt uncomfortable in the facility may be reluctant to discuss the event.

A calm, respectful conversation can help staff understand what happened without making the person feel blamed or punished.

The discussion should explore the person's account, needs and preferences. Were they trying to reach a familiar place? Did they become confused? Were they looking for someone? Did they need something that was unavailable? Were they seeking privacy or trying to leave an uncomfortable situation?

These possibilities should not automatically be attributed to cognitive impairment or described simply as problematic behavior.

An unexplained absence may occasionally reveal an unmet need, dissatisfaction with care, interpersonal conflict or a concern about mistreatment. Those findings may require action beyond revising a supervision plan.

If the person chooses not to return or disputes the proposed arrangements, the provider should respond according to the circumstances, applicable law and any immediate safeguarding concerns.

The purpose of follow-up is to understand the experience, protect the person's welfare and identify what could reasonably be improved.

Learning From Incidents Without Automatically Restricting Freedom

An incident review should begin with the question of what happened, rather than the assumption that someone must have made a mistake.

The sequence of events can reveal useful information about the reliability of the care system.

When was the resident last reliably seen? How was the absence recognized? What information was available to the first worker? When was the responsible person contacted? How was risk assessed? Were internal searches and external notifications appropriate to the circumstances?

The review should also consider whether staff could maintain safe care for other residents while responding.

A person who returns safely may nevertheless have been exposed to considerable risk. Conversely, a quickly resolved absence may reveal a communication weakness without representing a serious safety event.

Both situations can provide useful lessons, but they should not necessarily be managed in the same way.

The resident's own account should inform the review wherever possible. Families or legally authorized representatives may contribute when appropriate, particularly if they can help explain changes in routines, personal circumstances or support needs.

Improvements may involve more reliable shift handovers, clearer responsibility for checking expected returns, environmental adjustments, updated emergency information or additional staff training.

The provider should be cautious about responding through restrictions alone.

Following an incident, it may seem easier to prevent the person from leaving unaccompanied, lock an exit or introduce continuous monitoring. Yet these measures may interfere with autonomy, create distress or introduce other safety risks.

Any proposed restriction must have an appropriate legal basis, be individually justified, proportionate to the circumstances and subject to review. Less restrictive alternatives should be considered, and the resident should participate in decisions to the extent possible.

A meaningful improvement is one that addresses the underlying risk without unnecessarily diminishing the person's ordinary life.

Measuring the Reliability of the Response

Counting unexplained absences can provide useful information, but incident numbers alone offer an incomplete picture of safety.

A facility reporting no such events may have effective safeguards. It may also have weak incident recognition or incomplete documentation.

More informative monitoring examines whether concerns are identified promptly, whether available information is checked reliably and whether decisions reflect the individual level of risk.

Providers can review how quickly the responsible coordinator becomes involved, whether escalation occurs when indicated, whether relevant emergency information is accessible and whether appropriate follow-up is completed after the person is found.

Repeated absences may deserve particular attention, especially when previous reviews identified contributing factors that remain unresolved.

Time-based measures can help identify avoidable delays, but they require careful interpretation. An average response time may conceal a serious delay involving a high-risk resident, while a rapid response to a low-risk situation does not necessarily demonstrate good judgment.

Measures should therefore be considered alongside individual case reviews and the circumstances known to staff at the time.

Quality monitoring should also examine whether agreed improvements have been implemented and whether residents have experienced unintended restrictions following incidents.

The objective is not to achieve a low incident count by discouraging reporting or preventing residents from going outside. It is to determine whether the organization can recognize genuine safety concerns, respond appropriately and improve its arrangements when weaknesses become apparent.

Making Preparedness Part of Everyday Residential Care

Procedures are most useful when staff understand how to apply them during a difficult shift.

A residential provider can test its arrangements through a realistic scenario. An older resident is unexpectedly absent in the evening. The usual supervisor is unavailable, information about a planned outing is unclear and only a small number of care workers are on duty.

The exercise can reveal whether staff know who coordinates the response, how essential information is obtained, how search responsibilities are assigned and when assistance from police or emergency medical services is required.

It should also test whether sufficient personnel remain available to care for other residents.

This is particularly important in smaller facilities and overnight services, where a search may quickly compete with routine care needs.

Practical exercises should involve the people who would actually respond, including care workers, shift leaders, reception or security personnel where present, and organizational management.

Any coordination with local authorities should follow established arrangements and applicable procedures.

Training should emphasize judgment as well as familiarity with written instructions. Workers need to understand why the same absence may require different responses depending on the resident's circumstances and the information available.

For facilities preparing for the implementation of Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, the regulatory transition offers an opportunity to review how care assessment, staffing, service planning, monitoring and organizational oversight contribute to incident preparedness.

An unexplained-absence procedure does not need to be complicated to be effective. It should make responsibilities clear, support timely decisions and remain usable under pressure.

The strongest evidence of preparedness is not a lengthy policy document. It is whether staff can recognize a concerning situation, work together and obtain appropriate assistance when it matters.

Building Residential Care That Protects Both Safety and Independence

Older people enter residential long-term care for different reasons. Some need substantial daily assistance, while others seek companionship, convenience or support with particular activities. Their expectations of independence may differ just as much as their care needs.

A well-managed residential service must be able to recognize vulnerability without assuming that every resident is incapable of making decisions.

Preventing unexplained absences therefore requires more than controlling entrances. It depends on understanding individual routines, communicating reliably, maintaining safe environments and responding appropriately when something is uncertain.

When a resident cannot be located, staff should be able to establish the available facts, recognize when the risk is serious and obtain assistance without avoidable delay.

When the person is found, the organization should be equally prepared to listen, assess their wellbeing and consider whether the event reveals a need for better support.

For Viet Nam, the continuing development of residential long-term care creates an opportunity to incorporate these practices into everyday service design, workforce development and quality oversight.

No provider can reasonably guarantee that a resident will never leave unexpectedly. Attempting to achieve such a guarantee through unrestricted control of movement would be neither realistic nor consistent with respectful, person-centered care.

A better measure of quality is whether the facility understands its residents well enough to recognize when an absence is concerning, responds in a timely and proportionate way, and learns from the experience without unnecessarily limiting their freedom.

That is an important part of building residential long-term care that is both safe and respectful of the people who call it home.

References and Further Reading

1. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended. Consolidated text No. 23/VBHN-VPQH, issued February 26, 2026.

2. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP, dated September 12, 2017, concerning the establishment, organization, operation, dissolution and management of social assistance facilities.

3. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, dated October 23, 2026, on the operation and management of social assistance facilities. Effective December 7, 2026. Particularly Articles 9, 10, 19 and 21, and Appendix II.

4. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13, particularly Articles 22–24 concerning civil act capacity and Article 68 concerning court declarations of missing persons.

5. National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15, effective January 1, 2026, particularly Articles 16 and 19 concerning public disclosure and processing without consent in specified circumstances.

6. Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, dated December 31, 2025, detailing and implementing provisions of the Law on Personal Data Protection.

7. Prime Minister of Viet Nam. Decisions No. 2023/QD-TTg and No. 2024/QD-TTg, dated September 15, 2025, concerning the national 112 emergency hotline and its operating arrangements.

8. Australian Government. Aged Care Act 2024 and Aged Care Rules 2025, including the July 1, 2026, compilation. Relevant provisions concerning reportable incidents, unexplained absences, Priority 1 classification and notification requirements.

9. Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, Australia. Unexplained Absence from Care. Official guidance concerning recognition, response, documentation and reporting. The Commission notes that parts of this guidance are being updated to align with the legislative changes introduced on November 1, 2025.

10. Home Office, United Kingdom. The Multi-agency Response for Adults Missing from Health and Care Settings: A National Framework for England. November 26, 2021.

11. College of Policing, United Kingdom. Missing Persons: Authorised Professional Practice. Revised July 3, 2026. Guidance concerning safeguarding, risk assessment, investigations and multi-agency cooperation.

12. Police Service of Northern Ireland. Herbert Protocol. Guidance on preparing essential information in advance to support police searches for people living with dementia who may become missing.

Editorial Note

This article is an independent, evidence-informed discussion of quality, safety, resident rights, organizational preparedness and incident management in residential long-term care for older people in Viet Nam. It is intended for general educational and quality improvement purposes.

It does not constitute legal advice, individualized clinical advice, an operational emergency response protocol or an accreditation standard. It does not establish mandatory reporting deadlines or procedures beyond those required by applicable law.

Vietnamese legal requirements must be distinguished from international regulatory models and good-practice guidance. The Australian Serious Incident Response Scheme, the English multi-agency framework and the Herbert Protocol are presented for comparative learning and are not represented as mandatory procedures under Vietnamese law.

The applicability of Vietnamese laws and regulations depends on the facility's legal status, category, scope of services and the circumstances of an incident. Providers should establish locally appropriate emergency arrangements and obtain relevant professional or legal advice when developing policies concerning residents' safety, autonomy, personal information, communication with authorities and incident reporting.

Legal and evidence review date: November 1, 2026.