Protecting Older Residents When Residential Long-Term Care Operations Are Suspended or Discontinued in Viet Nam: Continuity Planning, Safe Relocation and Accountability

Protecting Older Residents When Residential Long-Term Care Operations Are Suspended or Discontinued in Viet Nam: Continuity Planning, Safe Relocation and Accountability

A daughter receives an unexpected call from the residential care facility where her mother has lived for several years. The facility is preparing to close, and residents will need to move elsewhere. The family is asked to make alternative arrangements as soon as possible.

Her mother lives with dementia, needs assistance with most daily activities, and has become accustomed to the people who care for her. She recognizes familiar voices, follows established routines, and finds reassurance in knowing what to expect each day. Moving to an unfamiliar environment may be difficult, even if another facility can provide appropriate care.

The daughter has questions that go beyond finding an available room. Who will assess whether another facility can meet her mother's needs? Will her medications and care information be transferred accurately? What happens if a suitable alternative cannot be found before the facility stops operating?

These questions illustrate why suspending or discontinuing residential long-term care requires more than an administrative closure plan. When someone depends on a facility for accommodation, personal assistance, supervision, and access to healthcare, an interruption can affect nearly every aspect of daily life.

For Viet Nam, where formal long-term care services are developing alongside longstanding family caregiving arrangements, protecting older residents during service disruptions deserves greater attention. The challenge is not simply to find somewhere else for people to live. It is to ensure that necessary care continues, individual rights are respected, and responsibilities remain clear throughout the transition.

When a Care Facility Is Also Someone's Home

Residential long-term care differs from many other services because it provides both care and a place to live. For some older residents, the facility has become their primary home, sometimes over many years.

Daily routines, relationships with care workers, familiar surroundings, and regular contact with relatives can all contribute to a person's sense of security. These connections may be especially important for residents living with dementia, substantial physical dependency, sensory impairment, or communication difficulties.

When a facility stops operating, several forms of support may be disrupted at once. Residents may need to adjust to unfamiliar caregivers, different surroundings, new medication arrangements, altered routines, and changes in access to healthcare and family support.

Research published in 2026 provides useful insight into these experiences.

A major study led by Jon Glasby and colleagues, published by the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Research in February 2026, examined what happens when care homes close. It found that closures can be deeply distressing for residents, relatives, and care workers. Emergency closures were particularly difficult, while more planned transitions offered opportunities for preparation, communication, and attention to individual needs.

The research also showed that people's experiences were not identical. Some residents settled successfully after moving, while others experienced considerable difficulties. This distinction matters because the outcome of relocation may depend partly on how the transition is planned, the circumstances surrounding the closure, and the support available to the individual.

A separate Dutch retrospective cohort study by Schreuder and colleagues, published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association in 2026, examined associations between nursing home relocation and subsequent health outcomes. Relocation was associated with an increased risk of greater dependency in activities of daily living and cognitive impairment. The study did not find comparable evidence of increased risks of poorer mood or mortality.

These findings require careful interpretation. The observational design does not establish that relocation caused the changes, and the researchers acknowledged the need to investigate possible reverse causation. Results from nursing homes in the Netherlands also cannot automatically be generalized to every residential care setting in Viet Nam.

Nevertheless, the research reinforces an important principle: relocation is a significant care transition, not merely a change of address.

In some circumstances, moving to another facility may improve safety and access to appropriate care. In others, a poorly planned move may introduce avoidable distress, disruption, or gaps in support. What matters is that the decision and the arrangements surrounding it respond to the person's actual needs.

Understanding Suspension and Discontinuation Under Vietnamese Law

Not every interruption to residential care involves permanent closure.

A facility may be required to suspend particular activities because certain operating requirements are no longer met. More serious deficiencies may result in suspension of the entire operation. In other circumstances, specific activities or all operations may be discontinued.

A provider may also consider voluntary closure for financial, organizational, or commercial reasons. Such decisions need to be distinguished from regulatory suspension or discontinuation ordered by a competent authority.

These differences matter because the legal procedures, immediate risks, and arrangements required to protect residents may not be the same.

Viet Nam has recently introduced an important regulatory development in this area.

Government Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP, issued on October 23, 2026, establishes provisions governing the operation and management of social assistance facilities. It is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026, replacing Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP from that date.

As of November 2, 2026, the new decree has been issued but is not yet in force. Organizations must continue to comply with the currently applicable legal framework while preparing for the forthcoming requirements.

Decree 395 covers public and non-public social assistance facilities within its defined scope. Its specified facility categories include social welfare establishments caring for older people and facilities providing long-term care services for older people.

Article 13 establishes circumstances in which social assistance facilities may be required to suspend one or more activities or their entire operation. These include failures to meet specified requirements concerning facilities, personnel, care processes, and service delivery, as well as risks affecting the rights, health, safety, or dignity of service users.

The article also prohibits the admission of new service users within the scope of suspended activities or during full suspension. For facilities covered by the relevant provisions, it sets maximum suspension periods of three months for partial suspension and six months for full suspension.

These periods are regulatory limits. They should not be interpreted as permission to continue unsafe activities or as an assurance that residents can remain in place throughout a suspension.

Article 14 addresses circumstances in which activities may be partially or fully discontinued, including specified cases where deficiencies remain unresolved after suspension or serious violations occur.

Article 15 is particularly important for protecting people already receiving care.

Before the non-emergency suspension or discontinuation decisions covered by that provision, the competent management authority must require the facility to propose a plan safeguarding the rights and interests of affected service users and submit it for approval by the competent authority.

The plan must identify affected individuals and their circumstances, explain how appropriate care and services will continue, identify alternative receiving locations where transfer is necessary, address the handover of records, medications, property, and relevant documents, and establish responsibilities among the facility, public authorities, and other involved parties.

Article 15 also contains provisions for immediate protective action in specified emergencies involving exceptionally serious violations or direct threats to the life, health, safety, or dignity of people receiving care.

Article 21 provides transitional arrangements for facilities established and licensed under Decree 103/2017/ND-CP before the new decree takes effect. These facilities may continue operating without having to complete the new initial activity notification procedure. They are given two years from the effective date to review their operations, ensure compliance with the applicable new operating requirements, and report the results to the competent management authority.

This transitional arrangement should not be interpreted as permission to disregard existing legal obligations or immediate safety requirements.

The scope of the new decree also requires careful interpretation. Not every privately operated accommodation service, healthcare facility, or organization providing support to older people necessarily falls under identical provisions.

Similarly, the procedures for regulatory suspension and discontinuation should not automatically be applied to every voluntary commercial closure without examining the facility's legal status, the nature of its activities, relevant contracts, and other applicable laws.

The Law on Older Persons, the Law on Medical Examination and Treatment where clinical services are involved, and relevant civil, consumer protection, employment, and personal data protection legislation may also affect the responsibilities of individual organizations.

Decree No. 335/2026/ND-CP, which took effect on October 5, 2026, is another relevant part of the social assistance framework. Where residents receive support under applicable social assistance policies, their eligibility, care arrangements, and funding circumstances may need to be considered during the transition.

For long-term care providers, the practical lesson extends beyond formal compliance. An organization needs to understand how people who depend on its services will remain protected if those services can no longer continue as planned.

Deciding Whether Residents Can Safely Remain or Need to Move

When a facility faces suspension or closure, identifying alternative accommodation may seem like the most urgent task. Yet an equally important question is whether each resident can safely remain under a lawful temporary arrangement or needs to relocate.

During a partial suspension, unaffected services may be able to continue while the organization addresses the activities that can no longer be provided. Appropriate external support may be possible, provided this is consistent with applicable law, the regulatory decision, and the facility's actual capabilities.

A full suspension or imminent closure may create different circumstances. If the organization can no longer maintain essential staffing, accommodation, supervision, food services, medication support, or necessary access to healthcare, keeping residents in the building may not represent safe continuity of care.

A familiar environment can provide reassurance, but familiarity cannot compensate for unsafe conditions.

At the same time, relocation should not be driven solely by administrative convenience. Moving someone prematurely may expose that person to unnecessary disruption when a safe and legally permissible interim arrangement remains available.

The decision requires consideration of both the risks of remaining and the risks of moving.

For some residents, early relocation may be the safest option. Others may benefit from additional preparation and a more gradual transition, provided their existing care remains safe and authorized.

Where there is an immediate threat, protective action takes priority over maintaining the original placement.

These decisions should be informed by individual assessment, documented appropriately, and reviewed as circumstances change. The relevant competent authorities should be involved when required.

The important question is whether the person's essential needs can continue to be met safely throughout the period of disruption.

Building Continuity Plans Around Individual Needs

A facility-wide operational decision can affect many residents, but their circumstances may differ substantially.

One person may be relatively independent and able to participate actively in choosing a new home. Another may require continuous supervision, assistance with eating, support with mobility, or access to specialized healthcare.

A resident receiving palliative care may have particularly sensitive needs relating to symptom control, familiar relationships, and agreed goals of care.

For these reasons, a credible continuity plan should begin with the individual rather than a single relocation timetable for everyone.

Assessment should establish the person's current health and functional status, essential care requirements, communication needs, cognitive abilities, significant risks, and existing support arrangements.

It should also consider what matters to the resident. Familiar routines, preferred caregivers, proximity to relatives, cultural or religious practices, and personal belongings may influence how a person experiences the transition.

Residents should receive understandable information about what is changing, why the change is necessary, and what options are available. They should be supported to communicate their preferences wherever possible.

Relatives can provide valuable insight into the person's history, usual behavior, care needs, and important relationships. However, family involvement does not automatically replace the older person's lawful decision-making rights.

A diagnosis of dementia should not, by itself, be treated as proof that someone cannot participate in decisions about future care. Organizations should consider the person's actual ability to understand and express preferences in the particular circumstances and provide appropriate support.

Where legal representation is required, the relevant authority of the representative must be established in accordance with Vietnamese law.

A resident-level continuity plan should explain what care must continue, how any necessary move will be organized, who is responsible for each arrangement, and what follow-up is required.

These plans should remain practical. A document that identifies a person's needs without explaining how they will be met provides limited protection when a facility is under pressure to close.

Choosing a Receiving Arrangement That Can Meet the Person's Needs

When relocation is necessary, finding an available bed is not the same as finding an appropriate place to live.

The proposed receiving organization needs to understand the resident's assessed requirements and confirm whether it can provide suitable accommodation, personal assistance, supervision, equipment, and access to necessary clinical services.

A resident who needs substantial assistance with daily activities requires dependable support throughout the day and night. Someone living with dementia may need an environment and care approach that support orientation, communication, familiarity, and safety without unnecessary restrictions.

A person with complex health needs may require coordinated access to qualified healthcare professionals or specialist services.

It is important to distinguish residential social assistance services from regulated medical examination and treatment. A facility should not be assumed to have authority to provide clinical services merely because it accommodates older people with significant health needs. The relevant licensing and professional requirements must be respected.

The receiving provider should review sufficient information to understand its proposed responsibilities and confirm its ability to deliver the necessary care.

Affordability is another important consideration. A placement that meets personal care needs but cannot realistically be sustained under the resident's financial arrangements may create a further disruption.

Distance also matters. A facility located far from relatives may affect family visits, informal support, and access to established healthcare providers.

Some residents may prefer to return home or live with relatives rather than move to another residential facility. Such arrangements may be suitable when they reflect the person's wishes, the environment is appropriate, and sufficient care can be provided.

However, family members should not be expected to assume demanding care responsibilities simply because the original facility is closing.

If no suitable alternative can be found, the problem should be escalated through the applicable organizational and competent-authority arrangements. An unsuitable placement should not be presented as an acceptable solution merely because it allows the outgoing facility to meet a closure deadline.

Confirmed receiving capacity means more than the willingness to accept a resident. It requires confidence that the receiving arrangement can meet the person's essential needs.

Maintaining Essential Care While Operations Wind Down

Some of the greatest risks may arise before a facility officially stops operating.

As a closure approaches, employees may leave, supplier arrangements may change, and financial pressures may intensify. Management attention may shift toward contractual, regulatory, and administrative matters while residents continue to depend on everyday care.

A decreasing number of residents does not necessarily justify a proportional reduction in staffing or other safeguards. The last few residents may have substantial care needs and require considerable assistance, supervision, or coordination.

Management therefore needs to maintain appropriate arrangements for essential care until the relevant responsibilities have been safely and lawfully transferred or otherwise resolved.

This includes ensuring that staff understand who remains responsible for daily care, urgent decisions, incident response, communication with families, and coordination with external services.

Food, water, essential utilities, necessary equipment, medication arrangements, and access to appropriate clinical support must remain reliable while residents continue to receive care.

The needs of care workers also deserve attention. Employees may experience uncertainty about their jobs, income, and continuing responsibilities. Some may have formed close relationships with residents and find the prospect of separation emotionally difficult.

Clear communication, appropriate supervision, realistic staffing arrangements, and compliance with applicable employment obligations contribute to the organization's ability to maintain dependable services.

An announced closure date should not be treated as evidence that responsibility for residents has already ended. Care must remain appropriate to the people still receiving it, including those who are the last to leave.

Making Relocation and Care Handover Safe

Once a suitable destination has been confirmed, the next challenge is ensuring that the journey and transfer of care are organized safely.

Transport arrangements should reflect the resident's mobility, health status, cognitive needs, and required level of assistance.

Some people may travel safely using ordinary transport with suitable support. Others may need accessible vehicles, trained escorts, specialized equipment, or medically supervised transport following an appropriate assessment.

A routine residential relocation should not automatically be treated as emergency medical transport. Conversely, a clinically unstable resident or someone requiring urgent medical assessment should not be moved through an unsuitable non-emergency arrangement.

Where circumstances permit, the move should be scheduled to avoid unnecessary waiting, disruption of essential care, or arrival when appropriate receiving personnel are unavailable.

The receiving organization should know when the resident is expected and be prepared to provide the agreed assistance.

Personal belongings can also make a difference. Clothing, mobility aids, glasses, hearing aids, family photographs, and familiar objects may help the person settle into the new environment. For someone living with dementia, familiar items and established routines can provide reassurance.

These details may appear secondary to the logistics of relocating multiple residents, but they can be important to the person experiencing the move.

A safe journey, however, is not the same as a completed transfer of care.

The receiving team needs accurate information about the resident's current needs and the arrangements required to maintain essential support.

A structured handover should cover the current care plan, relevant health information, functional and communication needs, significant risks, personal assistance requirements, and arrangements for accessing necessary professional care.

Medication information requires particular attention. The receiving team may need an accurate medication list, current prescribing instructions, known allergies, and relevant administration information, including the last administration time where necessary.

Any discrepancies or uncertainties should be clarified through appropriately qualified professionals.

The physical transfer and subsequent handling of medicines must comply with applicable legal requirements, professional responsibilities, storage conditions, and organizational procedures.

Other essential information may include nutritional requirements, swallowing precautions, skin care needs, rehabilitation arrangements, assistive devices, and scheduled healthcare appointments.

Not every resident needs the same set of documents. The handover should reflect actual care requirements while ensuring that important information is not omitted.

The receiving provider should have an opportunity to ask questions, confirm what has been received, and identify unresolved concerns.

Clear documentation of acceptance and outstanding responsibilities helps prevent important tasks from being overlooked because each organization assumes that another has completed them.

Personal and health information must also be handled lawfully.

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 relevant obligations for the processing and protection of personal data.

Organizations should ensure that information sharing has an appropriate legal basis, follows applicable consent requirements, and uses suitable safeguards against unauthorized access, disclosure, or loss.

Privacy protection and continuity of care should be addressed together. Essential information needs to reach the appropriate people through lawful and secure arrangements, rather than being withheld unnecessarily or disclosed without adequate safeguards.

Applicable requirements for record retention, access, and disposal must also be respected.

A successful handover depends not only on the transfer of documents but also on confirming that the receiving team understands the person's needs and accepts the agreed responsibilities.

Protecting Property, Payments, and Contractual Interests

A closure may create uncertainty about personal property and financial arrangements as well as care.

Residents may have belongings stored at the facility, important identification documents, deposits, prepaid service fees, or other contractual interests connected with their stay.

These matters should be identified early and managed transparently.

Personal belongings and documents should be returned or transferred to appropriately authorized recipients, with records showing what has been handed over and what remains outstanding.

Residents and those legally authorized to act on their behalf should receive understandable information about payments already made, outstanding charges, potential refunds, and proposed changes to contractual arrangements.

The amount and timing of any refund or financial settlement depend on the relevant agreement, funding arrangements, and applicable law. It would be inappropriate to assume that one particular refund rule applies universally to every residential care arrangement in Viet Nam.

The Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 19/2023/QH15 may be relevant where the relationship falls within its scope. Other civil, contractual, and sector-specific requirements may also apply.

Where disagreements arise, residents and families should have access to appropriate channels for clarification, complaint, and lawful resolution.

Financial and property issues should not unnecessarily delay urgent protective action. Where immediate safety needs take priority, unresolved administrative matters should be documented and assigned for follow-up.

An accountable process protects residents while also reducing uncertainty for organizations about what has been transferred, settled, or remains unresolved.

Responding When Suspension Must Be Immediate

Not every disruption allows time for a carefully planned transition.

A facility may face an immediate threat because of serious safety failures, violence, abuse, neglect, unsafe physical conditions, or other circumstances that make continued care dangerous.

In such situations, protecting residents from immediate harm takes priority.

Article 15 of Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP specifically addresses emergency circumstances involving exceptionally serious violations or direct threats to life, health, safety, or dignity.

Once the decree takes effect, the competent authorities identified in the provision may order immediate partial or full suspension and direct relevant agencies and local authorities to implement protective measures and arrange appropriate care for affected service users.

The operational response should reflect the nature and seriousness of the threat and comply with the applicable legal authority.

An emergency relocation may leave insufficient time to complete every element of an ordinary transfer beforehand. Even so, responsible parties should prioritize identification, immediate care needs, necessary medication information, appropriate transport, and safe receiving arrangements as far as circumstances permit.

Information or documentation that cannot be completed during the immediate response should be followed up promptly once residents are protected.

Residents and families should receive accurate information as soon as it is safe and practicable to provide it.

Urgent suspension should not automatically be interpreted as permanent closure. Subsequent decisions about the facility's operations remain subject to the applicable legal process and actual circumstances.

Emergency protection also requires coordination.

Healthcare providers, social assistance services, management authorities, local government, and other relevant organizations may have different responsibilities depending on the situation.

No organization should assume that another party has accepted responsibility for a resident without appropriate confirmation.

When suitable placements are unavailable or residents have particularly complex needs, unresolved risks should be escalated rather than concealed within an incomplete transition plan.

Following Up After Residents Have Moved

For the outgoing facility, completion of transport may appear to be an important administrative milestone. For the resident, the adjustment to a new environment may only be beginning.

Some people settle relatively easily. Others may experience disturbed sleep, reduced appetite, withdrawal, confusion, or difficulty adjusting to unfamiliar people and routines.

These changes should not automatically be attributed to relocation. They may also reflect acute illness, pain, medication effects, or other conditions requiring appropriate clinical assessment.

Receiving providers should therefore monitor for significant changes in health, cognition, mood, function, and everyday participation, with suitable escalation when concerns arise.

Follow-up should be individualized rather than based on an assumed observation period that applies equally to everyone.

A relatively independent resident may need limited additional support. Someone with substantial care dependency, communication difficulties, or complex health conditions may require closer attention and more frequent review.

Families can help the receiving team understand the person's usual behavior and identify changes that might otherwise be missed.

The initial care plan should be reviewed as staff become more familiar with the resident's actual needs and preferences.

Maintaining familiar routines, supporting meaningful activities, and facilitating regular contact with relatives or other important people may help the person adjust.

Outstanding issues from the previous facility also need attention. Missing records, unresolved property matters, financial concerns, or questions about care responsibilities should remain visible until appropriately addressed.

The outgoing organization's responsibilities after transfer depend on the applicable legal, contractual, and coordinating arrangements. They should not be assumed either to continue indefinitely or to end automatically when transport is completed.

A practical review should establish whether residents reached suitable destinations, essential care was maintained, receiving providers obtained necessary information, and unresolved concerns were addressed.

Residents and families should have opportunities to describe their experiences.

A relocation can appear administratively successful while leaving someone distressed, disconnected from important relationships, or unable to access services previously available.

Organizations may also review delays in finding suitable placements, significant interruptions to care, medication or information handover problems, complaints, and other relevant events.

These measures require careful interpretation. Deterioration after relocation does not necessarily establish that the move caused the problem. Equally, the absence of a documented adverse event does not prove that the transition was satisfactory.

The purpose of evaluation is to identify avoidable gaps, understand what worked, and improve future continuity arrangements.

Making Continuity Planning Part of Governance

Residential care organizations should not begin considering service continuity only when a closure becomes unavoidable.

Financial difficulties, staffing shortages, infrastructure problems, regulatory concerns, and other operational pressures may develop gradually before a formal decision is made.

Early preparation allows an organization to understand which essential services residents depend on, which individuals may face the greatest difficulties if care is interrupted, and what resources may be required.

This is important for both large organizations and smaller facilities.

A network operating several locations may have access to additional resources, although those resources should not be assumed to be available automatically. Smaller providers may depend heavily on a limited number of employees or external partners.

Continuity planning should reflect these practical differences.

Relationships with local healthcare providers, social assistance services, and relevant authorities may help organizations coordinate when difficulties arise. However, a list of potential receiving facilities is not evidence that suitable placements will be available when needed.

Plans also need to account for circumstances in which several providers experience difficulties simultaneously, reducing local capacity.

International approaches offer useful lessons.

Australia's strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards include Outcome 7.2 on transitions, emphasizing coordinated movement between care providers and clear responsibilities across care workers, health professionals, and organizations.

The Aged Care Rules 2025 also establish requirements for continuity-of-care plans in specified circumstances where a registered residential aged care provider intends to require a person to leave. These provisions address matters such as suitable alternative accommodation, assessment of needs, transfer arrangements, and information required for continuity of care.

The United Kingdom provides another useful perspective. Research on care home closures and the 2026 Joint Working Protocol between the Care Quality Commission and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services highlight the importance of communication, information sharing, coordinated oversight, and protecting people when services experience serious difficulties.

ISO 25557:2026, Ageing Societies — Care Quality for Older Persons at Home and in Care Facilities, provides an additional international reference. Its scope includes requirements and recommendations for person-centered care quality, safety, individual preferences, and the provision of care across home and residential settings.

These frameworks can inform organizational improvement in Viet Nam. Their legal provisions, institutional structures, and funding arrangements should not be transferred directly into the Vietnamese context.

The World Health Organization's 2024 work on quality management in long-term care also supports a broader approach in which quality is not limited to compliance checks. It involves organizational learning, monitoring, accountability, and continuous improvement.

For Vietnamese providers, the priority is to develop arrangements that are legally sound, operationally realistic, and appropriate to the needs of residents.

A practical continuity plan should help leaders and staff understand how essential care will be maintained, how individual needs will be reassessed, how receiving arrangements will be confirmed, how responsibilities will be transferred, and how unresolved problems will be escalated.

Organizations operating several facilities should use lessons from one disruption to strengthen arrangements across the wider network.

The effectiveness of planning becomes evident when an organization faces a real interruption. At that point, the important question is whether the arrangements actually help protect residents, not simply whether a written plan exists.

Protecting the Person Beyond the Life of the Service

Suspending or discontinuing residential long-term care can create difficult decisions for providers, managers, public authorities, employees, and families.

These decisions may involve regulatory compliance, staffing, contractual obligations, finances, and the future of the organization.

For the older person, the immediate concern may be much simpler: Where will I live? Who will care for me? Will the people at my new home understand what I need?

Those questions deserve more than a list of alternative facilities.

Protecting residents requires an understanding of individual needs, respect for rights and preferences, reliable continuation of essential care, and appropriately coordinated transfers when relocation is necessary.

It also requires clear responsibility when suitable arrangements are difficult to secure or problems remain unresolved.

Viet Nam's evolving regulatory framework creates an opportunity to strengthen these arrangements, particularly for social assistance facilities within the scope of Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP.

The underlying quality principle, however, applies more broadly.

Organizations should consider how the people who depend on their services will be protected when normal operations can no longer continue.

The quality of a residential care facility should not be judged only by how it functions during stable periods. The way it responds when care is disrupted can also reveal the strength of its governance, preparation, and commitment to residents.

For older people, continuity means more than avoiding an interruption in services. It is about preserving safety, dignity, personal relationships, and as much stability as circumstances allow.

A service may come to an end. The responsibility to protect the people affected must remain central to the decisions made along the way.

Key References and Regulatory Context

Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP on the Operation and Management of Social Assistance Facilities. Issued October 23, 2026; effective December 7, 2026. Particularly Articles 13, 14, 15, 20, and 21.

Government of Viet Nam. (2017). Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP on the Establishment, Organization, Operation, Dissolution, and Management of Social Assistance Facilities, as applicable and amended. Scheduled to cease having effect from December 7, 2026.

Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 335/2026/ND-CP on Social Assistance Policies. Issued August 21, 2026; effective October 5, 2026.

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

National Assembly of Viet Nam. Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, as amended, and applicable implementing regulations.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2023). Law on Protection of Consumer Rights No. 19/2023/QH15, as applicable.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2025). Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15. Effective January 1, 2026.

Government of Viet Nam. (2025). Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP Detailing Certain Provisions and Measures for Implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective January 1, 2026.

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

Australian Government. Aged Care Rules 2025, as amended, including relevant provisions concerning security of tenure, continuity-of-care plans, suitable alternative accommodation, and transfers between registered providers.

Australian Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards — Standard 7: The Residential Community, Outcome 7.2: Transitions.

Glasby, J., et al. (2026). Improving Outcomes When Care Homes Close: NIHR Programme Grant Multi-Methods Study. National Institute for Health and Care Research, Programme Grants for Applied Research, 14(2). DOI: 10.3310/GJJG3821.

Schreuder, M. C., et al. (2026). The Association Between Relocations and Health Outcomes in Nursing Home Residents: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 27(8), 106311. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2026.106311.

Care Quality Commission and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. (2026). Joint Working Protocol Between CQC and ADASS. Published May 22, 2026.

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

About Healthy Longevity Vietnam

Healthy Longevity Vietnam (HLVN) is a VietnamWellcare initiative advancing the quality, integration, and implementation of care for older people in Viet Nam. Through evidence-informed approaches, practical implementation, measurement, quality improvement, and collaboration, HLVN supports better care across healthcare, home, community, and long-term care settings, with an emphasis on safety, coordination, dignity, and person-centeredness.

Disclaimer

This article is intended for general educational, quality improvement, and organizational development purposes. It does not constitute individualized medical or legal advice, an official interpretation of Vietnamese law, or a mandatory national standard for residential long-term care.

Legal obligations relating to suspension or discontinuation of operations, resident protection, alternative care arrangements, medication and record transfers, personal property, employment, and financial or contractual matters depend on the provider's legal status, the nature of its services, the circumstances of the interruption, and applicable laws and regulations.

Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP was issued on October 23, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026. Its provisions should not be treated as legally effective before that date or assumed to apply identically to every organization providing accommodation or care for older people.

Organizations should consult competent authorities and appropriately qualified legal, healthcare, or other relevant professionals when making decisions that may affect residents' rights, health, or safety.

International standards, research findings, and foreign regulatory frameworks are presented for educational comparison and quality improvement. They do not replace Vietnamese law, applicable professional requirements, individualized care assessments, or decisions made by competent authorities.

Information and regulatory context reviewed as of November 2, 2026.