Supporting Planned Returns Home from Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Resident Choice, Caregiver Readiness and Continuity of Care

Supporting Planned Returns Home from Residential Long-Term Care in Viet Nam: Resident Choice, Caregiver Readiness and Continuity of Care

Integrated Care & Care Transitions | Long-Term Care Quality

Last reviewed: November 3, 2026

An older woman has spent several months in a residential care facility following an illness that left her with reduced mobility. Her condition has improved, and she wants to return to the home where she lived for many years. Her family welcomes the decision, but some practical questions remain. Who will help her move safely around the house? Can someone assist with her medications and everyday activities? What will happen if her condition changes when no caregiver is available?

From an administrative perspective, leaving residential care may appear straightforward. A departure date is agreed upon, personal belongings are collected, payments are settled, and the resident returns home. Yet the end of a residential care arrangement can also mark a significant change in how everyday support is organized.

Not everyone who enters residential long-term care intends to remain there permanently. Some older people receive temporary support following illness, hospitalization, or functional decline. Others may wish to return home when their circumstances improve, when family support becomes available, or simply because living in a familiar environment matters to them.

A planned return home is therefore more than the end of a service agreement. It is a transition involving personal choice, current care needs, family circumstances, the home environment, and the availability of appropriate support.

For residential long-term care providers in Viet Nam, the challenge is to respect the older person's wishes while helping ensure that essential needs do not become overlooked responsibilities when residential services end.

Returning Home Should Begin With the Older Person's Wishes

A conversation about returning home should begin with the person whose living arrangements are changing.

An older resident may value the familiarity of home, greater control over everyday routines, opportunities to spend time with family, or renewed connections with neighbors and the community. These preferences deserve serious consideration, even when the person continues to need assistance.

Viet Nam's Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended, provides an important legal foundation. Article 3(1)(b) recognizes the right of older persons to decide whether to live with their children and grandchildren or live separately according to their wishes.

This provision reinforces the importance of respecting personal choice. However, it must be understood alongside other applicable laws governing civil act capacity, representation, guardianship, contractual arrangements, and individual rights.

A diagnosis of dementia, communication difficulty, or physical disability does not automatically remove someone's legal ability to participate in decisions about where they live.

Under Viet Nam's Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13, legally recognized circumstances involving loss of civil act capacity or difficulties in cognition and behavioral control are subject to specific requirements and, where applicable, court decisions.

Similarly, the fact that a relative arranged admission or pays residential care fees does not automatically establish unrestricted authority to decide where the older person must live.

In practice, some residents may need information presented more slowly, repeated discussions, accessible communication, or assistance from someone they trust. Their preferences should be explored directly wherever possible, with appropriate involvement of legally authorized representatives when required.

There may be circumstances in which a resident wishes to return home despite significant concerns about safety or the availability of support. Those concerns deserve an open and respectful discussion. The organization may need to explore alternatives, seek professional advice, and clarify the legal responsibilities involved.

A concern about risk does not automatically give a residential care provider authority to prevent a person from leaving. Equally, respecting personal choice does not mean withholding important information about foreseeable difficulties.

Good planning helps the older person make an informed decision while respecting the legal boundaries that apply to their individual circumstances.

Returning From Residential Care Is Different From Hospital Discharge

A planned return home from residential long-term care shares some features with hospital discharge, but the two situations should not be treated as identical.

Hospital discharge generally follows a period of medical assessment or treatment. The transition may involve changes to diagnoses, medications, rehabilitation needs, and clinical follow-up.

Residential care may involve a broader range of circumstances. Someone may have entered a facility for temporary personal assistance, recuperation, caregiver respite, or ongoing support with everyday activities.

The decision to return home may arise because the person has regained independence, their family circumstances have changed, or they prefer to resume living in their own environment. These reasons may not involve a new medical discharge decision.

A residential provider may also have different legal responsibilities and professional capabilities from a licensed hospital.

A hospital may have established clinical discharge procedures and multidisciplinary teams. A non-medical residential facility may rely on its own care workers, external healthcare professionals, family caregivers, and community services.

The transition process should therefore reflect the services actually provided, the older person's needs, and the organization's legal and contractual responsibilities.

A voluntary return home should also be distinguished from relocation caused by facility closure, regulatory suspension, or a decision to discontinue services. Those circumstances may involve different legal obligations and arrangements for protecting affected residents.

The focus here is a planned return home that reflects the older person's wishes and takes place within the applicable legal framework.

Assessing Current Needs Rather Than Assuming Previous Independence

Someone who lived independently before entering residential care may have different abilities when preparing to return home.

A resident may now require assistance with walking, transferring, bathing, dressing, preparing meals, or managing everyday activities. Another person may have recovered considerable independence but continue to experience fatigue, reduced confidence, or difficulty with particular tasks.

Cognitive and communication needs may also have changed during the residential stay.

The relevant question is not simply whether the person has improved enough to leave the facility. It is whether their current abilities and support needs are understood and whether the proposed home arrangements can respond to them.

A proportionate transition assessment may consider mobility, everyday functioning, cognition, communication, nutrition, continence, medication arrangements, and ongoing health or support needs.

The assessment should also identify what the person can manage independently.

An approach that focuses only on limitations may encourage unnecessary dependence. One that overlooks meaningful difficulties may leave the person without assistance they need.

The World Health Organization's second edition of Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE): Guidance for Person-Centred Assessment and Pathways in Primary Care, published on September 22, 2025, emphasizes individualized assessment, recognition of changes in intrinsic capacity, identification of social care needs, and personalized care planning.

These principles are relevant to planned returns home because they connect a person's abilities with the support available in their everyday environment.

However, ICOPE is guidance for primary and community care. It should not be presented as a mandatory residential care discharge protocol or a substitute for clinical judgment.

Where a person requires medical evaluation, treatment decisions, rehabilitation assessment, or other regulated clinical services, appropriately qualified healthcare professionals must remain responsible within their lawful scope of practice.

The residential care team can contribute valuable information about daily functioning, preferred routines, communication needs, and assistance that has been effective during the person's stay.

A meaningful transition assessment brings this information together with the resident's preferences and the practical circumstances at home.

Family Willingness Is Not the Same as Caregiver Readiness

Family members often play a central role in supporting older relatives in Viet Nam.

Returning to live with family may seem like a natural continuation of care, particularly when relatives have remained closely involved throughout the residential stay.

Yet a family's willingness to welcome someone home does not necessarily mean that every required form of assistance can be provided.

A daughter may be willing to help but work long hours. A spouse may offer companionship but be physically unable to assist with transfers. Several relatives may agree that someone will remain at home during the day without having decided who will actually be available.

These circumstances do not automatically make returning home inappropriate. They show why a general expression of family support needs to be translated into realistic arrangements.

Caregiver readiness involves understanding which activities require assistance, how often that support is needed, who will provide it, and what happens when the intended caregiver is unavailable.

Someone who needs occasional help preparing meals may require a very different arrangement from a person who cannot move safely without assistance or needs frequent supervision.

Potential caregivers should also have an opportunity to discuss their willingness, abilities, work commitments, health, and other responsibilities.

A family member may care deeply about an older relative while being unable to provide the proposed level of support. That limitation deserves recognition rather than criticism.

Where relatives are expected to undertake practical care tasks, appropriate instruction may be helpful. This could include understanding everyday care routines, using prescribed assistive equipment, supporting mobility within their abilities, or recognizing changes that require professional assessment.

Clinical activities must remain subject to applicable professional and legal requirements. They should not be transferred informally to unqualified relatives merely because the person is returning home.

The United Kingdom's NICE guideline NG27, Transition Between Inpatient Hospital Settings and Community or Care Home Settings for Adults with Social Care Needs, offers useful principles in this area.

The guideline recommends considering caregivers' willingness, ability, circumstances, support needs, and the practical and emotional aspects of caregiving.

Although NG27 focuses on hospital transitions, these considerations can inform residential care organizations preparing a voluntary return home.

The purpose is not to impose an elaborate assessment on every family. It is to avoid a situation in which essential care has been assumed rather than agreed upon.

The Home May Be Familiar but No Longer Fully Suitable

Returning to a familiar home can be reassuring. The person may recognize the surroundings, enjoy established routines, and regain a greater sense of control over daily life.

However, a home that was suitable before a period of illness may no longer accommodate the person's current abilities.

Stairs may become difficult to manage. A narrow bathroom may not provide enough space for assistance. Uneven flooring, poor lighting, or limited access to suitable equipment may create new challenges.

Some problems are less obvious. A bedroom may be far from the bathroom. A household may rely on a staircase that the person can no longer use safely. A family may plan to purchase a suitable bed or mobility aid but have no confirmed delivery date.

The purpose of considering the home environment is not to require every household to meet an ideal design standard. It is to understand whether the agreed care arrangements can realistically be carried out.

Where appropriate, the facility may discuss the home environment with the resident and family, obtain relevant information, or recommend assessment by a qualified rehabilitation, occupational therapy, accessibility, or other relevant professional.

A home visit may be useful for some residents, particularly where significant mobility limitations or environmental barriers are anticipated. It should not, however, be presented as a universal legal requirement for every departure from residential care in Viet Nam.

Where essential equipment or modifications are necessary from the first day, their availability should be confirmed before the resident depends on them.

A promise that equipment will be obtained later may not be adequate when it is needed immediately.

Home suitability also extends beyond the physical building. Access to healthcare, transportation, social support, and assistance during an emergency may affect whether the arrangement is workable.

The assessment should reflect the person's abilities, preferences, resources, and the support realistically available.

Community Support Must Be Available, Not Merely Identified

A family may be told that professional home care, rehabilitation, nursing services, or other community support can help after the resident returns home.

However, knowing that a service exists does not establish that it is available to the individual.

The provider may not serve the relevant neighborhood. The service may operate only during certain hours. Staffing may be limited, costs may be unaffordable, or the activity required may fall outside the provider's authorized scope.

These practical differences matter when a transition plan relies on external support.

Where a service is essential, the arrangement should be confirmed to an appropriate extent before the older person depends on it.

A telephone number or a general list of providers may be useful, but it is not equivalent to an accepted referral or an agreed service schedule.

Some people will return home with family assistance alone. Others may require support from qualified healthcare professionals, licensed healthcare providers, local health services, or other organizations operating within their relevant legal scope.

Not every resident will need the same combination.

The purpose of planning is to identify which services are genuinely necessary and determine whether they can be accessed in the person's circumstances.

This requires particular attention in Viet Nam, where formal home-based and community-based older-person care services are developing but may differ considerably between localities.

A care plan should not assume that every form of support described in national policy or international guidance is already available in a particular community.

When an essential service cannot be arranged as expected, the resident, family, and relevant professionals may need to consider other lawful and practical options.

A Meaningful Handover Goes Beyond the Departure Date

Residential care workers often know details about an older person's everyday needs that may not appear in a conventional medical record.

They may understand how the resident communicates discomfort, what assistance is needed with daily activities, which routines provide reassurance, and what has changed during the stay.

That knowledge can become difficult to access once the person returns home.

A meaningful handover should therefore communicate information relevant to the support that will continue after departure.

Depending on the individual's needs and the facility's role, this may include current functional abilities, mobility support, communication preferences, nutrition, personal care requirements, equipment, and important unresolved concerns.

The handover should also distinguish between needs that can be managed independently and those requiring assistance.

Where medications or ongoing treatment are involved, appropriately qualified healthcare professionals should ensure that relevant information is accurate and reaches those responsible for continuing care.

A current medication list, instructions from authorized clinicians, planned appointments, and relevant warning signs may be especially important.

Residential care workers should not independently change medications or make treatment decisions beyond their professional competence.

Where instructions are incomplete or contradictory, the issue should be referred to an appropriately qualified healthcare professional rather than transferred to the family as an unresolved clinical decision.

A handover should also make clear what has actually been arranged.

Providing the name of a healthcare facility is not the same as confirming an appointment. Giving a family contact details for a home-care service does not mean that the provider has accepted the referral.

The older person and those appropriately involved should understand which arrangements have been confirmed, which remain pending, and whom to contact when a problem arises.

For a resident who has spent months receiving consistent assistance from a familiar team, this clarity can make the first days at home less uncertain.

Information Sharing Must Respect Privacy and Legal Authority

Continuity of care often requires information to move between the residential facility, the older person, family caregivers, healthcare professionals, and other service providers.

This creates important responsibilities concerning privacy and confidentiality.

Not every family member is automatically entitled to receive the person's complete care or health records.

Similarly, the fact that another organization may provide support after the transition does not remove the need to establish an appropriate lawful basis for sharing personal information.

Viet Nam's Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15 and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP both took effect on January 1, 2026.

These instruments are relevant when organizations collect, process, store, or disclose personal data, including health-related information.

Residential care providers need to consider which information is necessary for continuity, who is lawfully authorized to receive it, and how it should be communicated securely.

Consent requirements and other applicable legal grounds must be respected, taking account of any lawful representation arrangements.

The resident should remain involved in decisions about information sharing wherever legally and practically appropriate.

Good information governance does not mean withholding necessary information without justification. It means sharing what is needed through lawful and secure arrangements while protecting the older person's rights.

The process also needs to be understandable to the people receiving the information.

A lengthy care record may contain useful details but still fail to explain the practical support required at home. Clear communication is therefore as important as the transfer of documents.

Unfinished Arrangements Should Remain Visible

Even with careful preparation, some matters may remain unresolved as the departure date approaches.

A follow-up appointment may not be confirmed. Equipment delivery may be delayed. A family member may still need instruction, or an expected service provider may be unable to begin on the agreed date.

These issues should not be treated as minor administrative details simply because the residential care arrangement is ending.

The resident and relevant parties need to understand which outstanding matters are essential, what risks they create, and who is responsible for addressing them.

Where necessary support cannot be confirmed, a revised departure plan, temporary additional assistance, or another appropriate arrangement may need to be discussed.

This requires sensitivity. The provider should not pressure a resident to leave before essential arrangements have been considered. At the same time, concerns about home readiness do not automatically authorize the facility to prevent a person with the relevant legal authority from leaving.

The appropriate response depends on the individual's wishes, the nature of the risks, applicable legal requirements, and the responsibilities established under the care agreement.

Where a person proceeds with an informed and lawful decision despite outstanding concerns, the facility should document the relevant discussions, information provided, reasonable assistance offered, and any communications required by law.

Where coercion, abuse, serious neglect, or another safeguarding concern is suspected, the organization may need to seek appropriate professional or competent-authority involvement.

Unresolved matters should not simply disappear from the record when the resident leaves.

An important distinction is whether responsibility for an outstanding issue has actually been accepted by someone else.

The facility should not claim that a referral, equipment arrangement, or follow-up service has been completed merely because it was discussed or recommended.

The Day of Return Is Part of the Transition

The day an older person leaves residential care may involve practical needs that deserve attention.

Transportation should reflect the person's current mobility and health status. Some people can travel using ordinary transport with suitable assistance, while others may require accessible vehicles or professionally arranged transport following an appropriate assessment.

The journey should not create avoidable physical risks simply because it is described as a routine return home.

Where circumstances allow, the departure time should be coordinated with the people expected to receive and support the resident.

A family member may need to be present when the person arrives. Essential equipment may need to be ready, and arrangements for meals, medications, or personal assistance may need to begin that day.

Personal belongings, relevant records, and other items should be transferred according to the applicable agreements and lawful arrangements.

Administrative matters also deserve transparent handling.

Outstanding service fees, deposits, personal property held by the facility, contractual notice requirements, and the completion or termination of services should be addressed according to the relevant agreement and law.

There should be no assumption that every residential care provider follows an identical refund or termination process.

However, financial or administrative uncertainty should not be allowed to obscure important care information or necessary safety arrangements.

The transition is not complete merely because the resident and their belongings have left the building.

The relevant parties should understand what support is expected to begin at home and what to do if an essential arrangement fails.

What Happens After the Older Person Returns Home?

Some difficulties only become apparent once the resident is back in familiar surroundings.

A family may discover that helping someone move around the home takes more time and effort than anticipated. The older person may feel less confident than expected, or a planned support service may not be available when it is needed.

Daily routines may also change. Someone who received assistance at predictable times in residential care may now depend on relatives with competing responsibilities.

Other people adjust well and regain independence after returning to their own environment.

These different experiences reinforce why follow-up should reflect individual needs rather than assume that every person requires the same level of monitoring.

For residents with substantial dependency or complex needs, a proportionate follow-up arrangement may help identify difficulties early.

However, the responsibility for follow-up should be established before the transition.

A former residential care provider should not automatically be regarded as having an indefinite duty to monitor everyone who leaves its services.

Equally, where the provider has agreed to complete a referral, supply information, or make a follow-up contact, that commitment should be fulfilled or appropriately transferred.

For some residents, continuing review may be provided by qualified healthcare professionals, a home-care service, or another relevant organization.

Others may manage independently with support from relatives and information about how to obtain assistance when needed.

NICE NG27 contains specific recommendations concerning follow-up after hospital discharge for people with particular needs. These are useful examples of risk-based continuity planning.

However, the timing and professional duties described for hospital discharge should not be transferred automatically to every planned return from residential long-term care in Viet Nam.

The practical question is whether the older person understands what support is available and whether responsibility for any essential follow-up has been clearly established.

Viet Nam's Regulatory Framework Is Developing

Residential long-term care in Viet Nam operates through different organizational arrangements.

Some providers are legally classified as social assistance facilities. Others may operate under different service, contractual, or healthcare arrangements.

The legal classification matters when determining what requirements apply to a planned return home.

The Law on Older Persons establishes important rights, including the right recognized in Article 3(1)(b) concerning living arrangements.

The Civil Code provides relevant rules concerning civil act capacity, representation, and guardianship.

Additional developments in 2026 are also relevant to the broader care environment.

The Law on Population No. 113/2025/QH15, effective July 1, 2026, recognizes different forms of older-person care, including self-care, care at home, community care, and care provided in formal care or healthcare settings.

Article 18 also addresses measures to support older-person care, including guidance and assistance for family members and the development of community support arrangements.

Government Decree No. 168/2026/ND-CP, issued on May 15, 2026, and effective July 1, 2026, provides additional provisions concerning care for older people at home and in the community.

Article 4 addresses home-based care, including assistance with daily living, information and skills relating to care and disease prevention, and support for physical, mental, and social well-being.

The decree also identifies categories of people involved in home-based care within its defined arrangements, including relatives, domestic workers governed by labor legislation, and specified personnel assigned through commune-level health stations.

On July 1, 2026, the Ministry of Health issued Decision No. 1976/QD-BYT, providing professional guidance on older-person care at home and in the community.

These instruments are relevant to understanding the development of community support for older people in Viet Nam.

However, they should not be interpreted as guaranteeing that every individual returning from residential care will receive a particular service or as creating a universal discharge procedure for every residential provider.

A further regulatory development concerns social assistance facilities.

Government Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP was issued on October 23, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026.

As of November 3, 2026, the new decree has been promulgated but is not yet legally effective. Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP, as applicable and amended, remains part of the existing framework for relevant facilities.

Article 6(14) of Decree 395 identifies a function involving coordination with local authorities, families, and relevant organizations to support service users in returning to their families, reintegrating into the community, and stabilizing their lives.

Importantly, Article 6 specifies that social assistance facilities undertake some or all of the listed tasks according to their functions, facility type, service users, and applicable legal requirements.

This provision should therefore not be interpreted as imposing an identical return-home procedure on every residential long-term care organization.

Nor should it be presented as creating an indefinite post-transition monitoring obligation or as granting a provider unrestricted authority over a resident's living arrangements.

Its application must be considered within the legal framework governing the particular facility and only from its effective date.

For HLVN, these developments highlight the importance of considering residential care as one part of a broader system that may also involve family, community, and home-based support.

International Quality Frameworks Offer Useful Principles

International frameworks can help residential care organizations consider how transitions should be planned and coordinated.

Australia's strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards, implemented as part of reforms that took effect on November 1, 2025, include two outcomes particularly relevant to this subject.

Outcome 7.2 addresses transitions to and from residential care, emphasizing coordination, continuity, involvement of older people and their supporters, and clear responsibilities across workers, professionals, and organizations.

Outcome 3.4 addresses the planning and coordination of funded aged care services, including transitions involving multiple providers and people supporting the individual.

These outcomes offer useful reference points for a planned return home.

However, the Australian standards operate within a specific regulatory and funding system. Their provider obligations should not be presented as directly applicable legal requirements for Vietnamese residential care facilities.

NICE NG27 offers another perspective through its recommendations concerning planning, caregiver involvement, communication, equipment, and support following hospital discharge.

Its focus is hospital-to-community and hospital-to-care-home transitions, not specifically voluntary departures from residential long-term care.

The relevance lies in selected planning principles rather than direct adoption of the hospital discharge framework.

WHO's ICOPE guidance provides a broader person-centered approach to assessment and care planning in primary and community settings.

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

Published in March 2026, the standard includes requirements and recommendations concerning care quality across home and residential settings, including short-term care, rehabilitation, safety, self-determination, and coordination.

It does not replace Vietnamese legislation, determine legal capacity, or impose a single mandatory procedure for returning home from residential care.

Together, these resources support an approach that respects individual preferences while paying attention to the practical arrangements required for continuity.

Their value lies in informing quality improvement that is appropriate to the Vietnamese context.

Measuring Transition Quality Requires More Than Counting Departures

A residential care provider may record how many residents return home each month without knowing whether those transitions were well prepared.

Departure numbers alone do not establish whether residents participated in decisions, caregivers understood the responsibilities involved, or essential services were ready when the person arrived home.

A more meaningful quality review examines the reliability of the transition process.

The organization may consider whether current support needs were reviewed, whether the resident's preferences were understood, and whether relevant caregivers were involved with appropriate authorization.

It may also examine whether essential equipment or services were confirmed, whether relevant information reached the intended recipients, and whether outstanding responsibilities had been clearly assigned.

Where follow-up was agreed, the facility can assess whether that commitment was completed.

Feedback from residents and families may reveal problems that do not appear in administrative records.

A family may receive a complete set of documents yet remain uncertain about whom to contact if something goes wrong. A resident may feel excluded from decisions even when relatives and staff believe the arrangements were satisfactory.

These experiences can inform improvements in communication and planning.

Outcomes after the transition also require careful interpretation.

An unplanned healthcare visit following a return home may justify review, but it does not automatically demonstrate that the residential provider caused the problem.

Similarly, remaining at home for an extended period does not, by itself, prove that the transition was safe or that every need was met.

Where organizations collect post-transition information, the purpose, responsibilities, follow-up period, and lawful basis for processing personal data should be established.

The goal is not to guarantee that no difficulties will arise after someone returns home. It is to improve the reliability of the decisions, information, support arrangements, and commitments that can reasonably be planned.

Returning Home Should Be a Supported Choice

Residential care and living at home are not competing measures of dignity, independence, or quality of life.

Both can provide meaningful support when they reflect the older person's needs, preferences, and circumstances.

For one person, remaining in residential care may provide essential supervision, professional assistance, and a sense of security.

For another, returning home may restore familiar relationships, greater independence, and a stronger connection with everyday community life.

Neither arrangement should automatically be considered better for everyone.

A planned return home becomes more meaningful when the older person has been heard, caregivers understand what they are agreeing to, necessary support is realistically available, and responsibilities remain clear as residential services end.

For residential long-term care providers in Viet Nam, this creates an opportunity to strengthen connections with families and community services while respecting the limits of their legal and contractual responsibilities.

The quality of a transition should not be judged only by whether the person left the facility on the agreed date.

It should also be considered in terms of whether the person made an informed and lawful choice, whether foreseeable needs were understood, and whether the next stage of care was prepared with sufficient attention to the realities of everyday life.

Returning home is not simply about changing an address or ending a residential care agreement. It is about supporting an older person to continue living in a place they have chosen, with as much independence, dignity, and appropriate assistance as their circumstances allow.

Key References and Regulatory Context

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2009). Law on Older Persons No. 39/2009/QH12, as amended. Particularly Article 3(1)(b) concerning older persons' choices about living arrangements.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2015). Civil Code No. 91/2015/QH13, as amended and applicable. Particularly Articles 22–23 concerning civil act capacity and difficulties in cognition or behavioral control, and relevant provisions on representation and guardianship.

National Assembly of Viet Nam. (2025). Law on Population No. 113/2025/QH15. Effective July 1, 2026. Particularly Article 18 concerning forms of older-person care and support for family caregivers.

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 Articles and Measures for Implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection. Effective January 1, 2026.

Government of Viet Nam. (2017). Decree No. 103/2017/ND-CP on the Establishment, Organization, Operation, Dissolution, and Management of Social Assistance Facilities, as amended and applicable.

Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 168/2026/ND-CP Detailing Certain Provisions and Measures for Implementation of the Law on Population. Issued May 15, 2026; effective July 1, 2026. Particularly Article 4 concerning care for older people at home.

Ministry of Health of Viet Nam. (2026). Decision No. 1976/QD-BYT Issuing Professional Guidance on Older-Person Care at Home and in the Community. Issued July 1, 2026.

Government of Viet Nam. (2026). Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP on the Operation and Management of Social Assistance Facilities. Issued October 23, 2026; scheduled to take effect December 7, 2026. Particularly Article 6(14) concerning coordination to support service users returning to families and communities.

World Health Organization. (2025). Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE): Guidance for Person-Centred Assessment and Pathways in Primary Care. Second edition. Published September 22, 2025.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2015). Transition Between Inpatient Hospital Settings and Community or Care Home Settings for Adults with Social Care Needs. NICE Guideline NG27.

Australian Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards — Outcome 7.2: Transitions.

Australian Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Strengthened Aged Care Quality Standards — Outcome 3.4: Planning and Coordination of Funded Aged Care Services.

Australian Government. Aged Care Rules 2025, 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.

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, quality improvement, and organizational development purposes. It does not constitute individualized clinical or legal advice, an official interpretation of Vietnamese law, or a mandatory national discharge or care-transition standard.

Decisions concerning an older person's living arrangements, civil act capacity, representation, guardianship, termination of residential services, and continuing care must be considered according to individual circumstances, applicable Vietnamese law, relevant agreements, and the involvement of appropriately qualified professionals.

An older person's age, physical dependency, disability, or diagnosis of dementia does not automatically remove their legal rights or grant relatives or residential care organizations unrestricted authority to determine where they must live.

Care assessments, family caregiver preparation, home suitability reviews, referrals, equipment arrangements, information handovers, and follow-up measures discussed in this article are examples of evidence-informed practices. They should not be interpreted as identical statutory obligations applicable to every residential care provider in Viet Nam.

Regulated medical assessment, treatment decisions, medication management, nursing interventions, and other clinical activities must remain within the appropriate professional and legal scope.

Personal and health information must be collected, used, stored, and shared in accordance with applicable confidentiality and personal data protection requirements.

The Law on Population No. 113/2025/QH15, Decree No. 168/2026/ND-CP, and Decision No. 1976/QD-BYT are relevant to the development of older-person care at home and in the community. They do not establish a universal residential care discharge procedure or guarantee access to particular services in every locality.

Decree No. 395/2026/ND-CP was issued on October 23, 2026, and is scheduled to take effect on December 7, 2026. It must not be treated as legally effective before that date or assumed to apply identically to every residential care organization.

International standards and foreign regulatory guidance are presented as reference points for quality improvement. They do not replace Vietnamese law or create automatically applicable responsibilities concerning discharge planning, caregiver training, follow-up, legal capacity, or service coordination.

Residential long-term care providers should develop arrangements appropriate to their legal status, service model, resident population, and local resources, consulting qualified healthcare, social care, legal, and other relevant professionals and competent authorities where necessary.

Information and regulatory context reviewed as of November 3, 2026.