Flooding and Access to Care in Viet Nam: Maintaining Time-Sensitive Treatment and Safe Patient Transfers
VIET NAM CONTEXT
Flooding and Access to Care in Viet Nam: Maintaining Time-Sensitive Treatment and Safe Patient Transfers
VIET NAM CONTEXT · CLIMATE-RESILIENT HEALTHCARE
Last reviewed: October 23, 2026
A hospital may remain open and fully staffed during severe flooding, yet some patients who depend on its services may be unable to reach it.
Consider a hypothetical situation involving a person receiving regular hemodialysis. After several days of heavy rainfall, roads leading to the hospital become impassable. The dialysis unit is still operating, but the patient cannot travel safely to the scheduled appointment. A family member contacts the hospital, uncertain when transportation will become available or whether treatment can be delayed.
The immediate concern is not whether the hospital can continue providing dialysis. It is whether this particular patient can receive necessary treatment safely and in time.
A healthcare facility may have functioning equipment, available clinicians, and sufficient supplies, but continuity of care can still be interrupted when patients cannot reach the services they need. An alternative facility may appear available, but reaching it safely or confirming its ability to accept the patient can be difficult during widespread flooding.
For healthcare organizations in Viet Nam, maintaining access to care during flooding requires attention to what happens before, during, and after a disruption. This includes identifying patients at risk of missing time-sensitive treatment, maintaining communication, assessing clinical urgency, coordinating safe alternatives, and following up when normal conditions begin to return.
The objective is not to guarantee that every scheduled service continues unchanged during a disaster. It is to reduce avoidable harm by recognizing when interrupted access may become clinically significant and supporting appropriate decisions under difficult circumstances.
When a Healthcare Facility Is Open but Patients Cannot Reach It
Flooding can create a gap between the availability of a health service and the ability of patients to use it.
A hospital may remain operational while surrounding roads are closed, public transportation is unavailable, or ambulance access is restricted. Some patients may be able to reach another healthcare facility, while others remain isolated. Electricity or communication disruptions can make it difficult to confirm appointments, obtain professional advice, or arrange alternative care.
The consequences differ between patients. A routine follow-up appointment may be safely rescheduled in some circumstances, while a delay in time-sensitive treatment could have serious implications. The difference depends on the patient's condition, the treatment involved, the anticipated duration of interruption, and whether a suitable alternative is available.
Access difficulties may continue after the most visible flooding has subsided. Roads can reopen gradually, transportation services may remain limited, and patients may still be dealing with damaged homes, financial pressures, or other consequences of the disaster.
WHO's Health Service Continuity Planning for Public Health Emergencies: A Handbook for Health Facilities (2021) provides a useful foundation for identifying essential services and planning to minimize disruptions. Although developed for public health emergencies and published as an interim version for field testing, its principles can inform preparation for flooding and other disasters when adapted to local circumstances.
For patient access, however, an additional question is necessary: even when a service remains available, can the people who need it receive care safely and at an appropriate time?
Before Access Is Lost: Identifying Patients at Risk of Interrupted Care
Preparations made before severe flooding can influence what happens when patients can no longer travel to their usual healthcare facilities.
Hospitals and clinics may already know which patients are scheduled for treatment over the following days. Some appointments can be postponed with limited clinical consequences, while others require closer attention because delays may affect patient safety or treatment outcomes.
The purpose of reviewing upcoming care is not to create a fixed list of diagnoses that automatically determines priority. Clinical urgency varies between individuals, even when they receive the same type of treatment.
A person receiving regular hemodialysis, for example, may face serious complications if treatment is missed, including fluid overload or potentially dangerous electrolyte disturbances. However, the urgency and appropriate response depend on the person's condition, treatment history, timing of the most recent session, and other clinical factors.
The treating dialysis team is therefore best positioned to assess what an anticipated interruption may mean for an individual patient.
Before flooding affects transportation, healthcare organizations can consider whether patients receiving time-sensitive care have reliable ways to contact their treating teams and understand what to do if they cannot attend.
Where clinically appropriate and operationally feasible, alternative appointments or treatment arrangements may be discussed in advance. Such decisions should be made by qualified healthcare professionals and should not be interpreted as a general recommendation to change treatment schedules whenever heavy rainfall is forecast.
The same principles apply beyond dialysis. Patients receiving certain infusions, specialist treatments, medication supplies, or ongoing clinical monitoring may need individualized consideration when access is threatened.
Personal circumstances also matter. Someone who depends on a caregiver for transportation may face different challenges from a patient who can travel independently. Communication barriers, mobility limitations, distance from healthcare facilities, and available family or community support can all influence access.
The value of preparation lies in recognizing these differences early, while communication and transportation arrangements are still available.
Communication When Normal Access Becomes Uncertain
Communication becomes particularly important when flooding disrupts ordinary healthcare arrangements.
Patients need reliable information about whether their usual facility is operating, whether scheduled services have changed, and how to obtain appropriate assistance if they cannot travel safely.
Communication arrangements should reflect the people a healthcare organization serves. Some patients may be reached through mobile messages or telephone calls, while others depend on family caregivers, local health services, or other appropriate communication channels.
No single method can be assumed to reach everyone. Electricity outages, telecommunications failures, limited digital access, and difficulties understanding health information can reduce the effectiveness of routine communication.
Where appropriate, organizations may need alternative ways to contact patients whose care is particularly time-sensitive. Contact arrangements can be discussed before emergencies, using information collected and maintained in accordance with applicable requirements.
It is also important to distinguish general operational information from individualized clinical advice.
A notice explaining that outpatient appointments are being rescheduled is different from a clinical assessment of whether a particular patient can safely delay treatment. Patients with potentially urgent needs may require direct contact with their treating team or another appropriately qualified healthcare professional.
Information should be clear about what is confirmed and what remains uncertain. If a service is expected to resume but its reopening time is unknown, communicating that uncertainty is preferable to providing reassurance that may later prove inaccurate.
Healthcare organizations should avoid encouraging patients to travel through flooded or otherwise unsafe routes simply to keep an appointment.
Where urgent clinical care may be necessary and safe access cannot be arranged through ordinary means, coordination with appropriate emergency medical or disaster response services may be required.
Effective communication cannot eliminate flooding-related disruption. It can, however, reduce confusion and help patients and healthcare professionals make safer decisions while conditions remain uncertain.
When a Patient Cannot Reach Time-Sensitive Treatment
Returning to the hemodialysis example, the central question is what should happen when the patient cannot attend the scheduled treatment.
It would be unsafe to assume that the patient can simply wait until floodwater recedes. It would also be inappropriate to conclude that every missed dialysis session requires exactly the same emergency response.
The treating team needs to evaluate the patient's individual circumstances and the potential consequences of delaying treatment.
Relevant information may include the patient's current condition, symptoms, timing of the most recent dialysis session, recent clinical findings where available, and the expected duration of interruption. Qualified healthcare professionals can then determine whether an alternative treatment arrangement, urgent assessment, or emergency care may be necessary.
Advice must remain individualized. General recommendations about fluid intake, dietary restrictions, medicines, or treatment schedules should not replace instructions from the responsible clinical team.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Kidney Foundation have published educational resources on emergency preparedness for people receiving dialysis. These emphasize advance planning, communication with treatment providers, and identifying possible alternatives when normal treatment becomes unavailable.
Such resources can support patient education, but their recommendations must be interpreted according to individual clinical needs, professional guidance, and healthcare arrangements in Viet Nam. Patient instructions developed for another country should not be adopted without appropriate clinical and local adaptation.
If the usual dialysis facility cannot be reached, treatment at another facility may be considered after confirming that it has the appropriate clinical capabilities and capacity. The receiving team may also require relevant treatment information to determine whether the arrangement is suitable.
If the patient's condition suggests an emergency, access to appropriate emergency assessment and treatment takes priority. Remote communication may help identify the need for urgent assistance, but it cannot replace a necessary examination, monitoring, or intervention.
The clinical significance of missed care must be assessed. Transportation difficulties alone should not determine how long a patient waits or what treatment is appropriate.
Understanding Routine Referral, Emergency Transfer, and Medical Evacuation
During disasters, the terms referral, patient transfer, and medical evacuation are sometimes used interchangeably. In practice, they can involve different levels of urgency, clinical support, coordination, and legal responsibility.
These are not three mutually exclusive legal categories. An emergency patient transfer may form part of a larger medical evacuation operation, while a planned referral during flooding may not involve medical evacuation at all.
Understanding the differences helps healthcare professionals determine which arrangements are appropriate.
Routine Referral and Planned Interfacility Transfer
A routine referral or planned interfacility transfer may be appropriate when a patient needs assessment or treatment at another healthcare facility because of clinical requirements, service availability, or specialist capabilities.
The patient may be clinically stable, and the arrangement can often be coordinated through established referral and communication procedures.
During flooding, a patient unable to attend the usual treatment facility may need an alternative provider. However, identifying another facility does not automatically mean that the patient can safely receive care there.
The receiving facility must have the necessary capabilities and capacity. The patient's condition, treatment requirements, transportation arrangements, and relevant clinical information also need to be considered.
For someone receiving ongoing outpatient treatment, an alternative appointment at another provider does not necessarily constitute a formal interfacility transfer. The appropriate arrangements depend on the clinical circumstances, the organizations involved, and applicable requirements.
Where responsibility for ongoing care changes, communication between providers can help clarify what treatment has been delivered, what further care is needed, and who is responsible for subsequent follow-up.
For patients covered by health insurance in Viet Nam, administrative and reimbursement requirements may apply. These should be addressed under the relevant regulations but should not be confused with the clinical assessment of whether a planned referral or transfer is safe and appropriate.
Emergency Patient Transfer
An emergency patient transfer involves greater clinical urgency.
A patient may require immediate assessment or treatment that cannot be adequately provided at the current location or healthcare facility.
Article 61 of Viet Nam's Law on Medical Examination and Treatment addresses emergency care, including facility-based and out-of-hospital emergency activities. Where additional technical support is required, the law provides for arrangements such as professional consultation, assistance from another healthcare facility, remote professional support, or transfer of an emergency patient to an appropriate facility.
The law also establishes responsibilities concerning the prioritization of resources for emergency care and arrangements for transferring emergency patients when necessary.
The patient's condition, the capabilities of the treating facility, the need for urgent intervention, and the safety of transportation are central to these decisions.
Emergency care responsibilities must be distinguished from the administrative procedures governing health insurance referrals.
The need for emergency assessment and treatment should not be determined solely by whether the patient already possesses an ordinary health insurance referral document. At the same time, applicable insurance and administrative requirements must still be addressed according to their respective legal purposes.
The immediate clinical decision and the subsequent handling of documentation or reimbursement are related issues, but they are not the same issue.
Medical Evacuation During a Disaster
Medical evacuation, often referred to as medevac, involves the coordinated movement of patients requiring medical care in emergencies or disasters. Depending on the circumstances, it may require specialized medical teams, suitable transportation capabilities, operational support, and coordination within a broader emergency response system.
WHO's Medical Evacuation in Emergencies: A Guidance for Medical Teams and Specialized Care Teams (2025) provides an international framework for safe and coordinated medical evacuation, including clinical care, logistics, operational support, and specialized team capabilities.
The guidance is relevant when ordinary transportation and referral arrangements are insufficient because of disaster conditions.
However, it should not be used as a general label for every patient who attends another healthcare facility during flooding.
A patient traveling to an alternative clinic for a planned appointment is not automatically undergoing medical evacuation. Likewise, an urgent interfacility transfer does not necessarily require a specialized disaster evacuation operation.
The distinction matters because the level of clinical support, transportation capability, coordination, and operational authorization may differ considerably.
WHO guidance can inform professional understanding, but it does not create independent legal authority for healthcare facilities or organizations to undertake medical evacuation activities in Viet Nam. Such operations must remain consistent with applicable law and arrangements established by competent authorities.
Safe Patient Transfer Requires More Than Transportation
During severe flooding, finding an available vehicle can be difficult. Yet transportation is only one element of a safe patient transfer.
The patient's clinical condition must be considered alongside the capabilities of the receiving facility, the proposed route, the transportation resources available, and the level of care needed during the journey.
A receiving hospital may have the appropriate specialty but lack capacity at the time of transfer. An ambulance may be available but unable to use the intended route safely. A patient may require monitoring or treatment during transport that cannot be provided in an ordinary vehicle.
These uncertainties require appropriate clinical and operational coordination.
Where feasible, the sending and receiving teams should communicate about the patient's condition, the reason for transfer, relevant treatment information, and the intended handover arrangements. The level of clinical support during transport should reflect the patient's needs and applicable professional requirements.
Information needed for continuing care must also be transferred through appropriate and lawful arrangements. Where electronic systems are unavailable, organizations may need suitable alternatives that preserve essential information and protect confidentiality.
A transfer should not be considered complete merely because the patient has left the original facility. Confirmation that the patient has reached the receiving service and that necessary information has been handed over can reduce uncertainty about continuing care.
Transportation decisions must also account for the safety of patients, accompanying personnel, and emergency responders. Ordinary vehicles should not be assumed capable of crossing flooded routes, and improvised transportation may introduce serious additional risks.
When routine transportation cannot be arranged safely, assistance may need to be coordinated through appropriately authorized emergency medical or disaster response services.
The objective is to avoid replacing one serious risk—the interruption of necessary treatment—with another created by unsafe transportation.
When Safe Transportation Is Not Immediately Available
Some flooding situations may temporarily prevent patients from reaching both their usual healthcare facility and any suitable alternative.
This creates particularly difficult circumstances when treatment cannot be postponed without potential harm.
Healthcare organizations may need to coordinate with clinical teams, emergency services, relevant authorities, and other providers to determine what assistance is available within their respective responsibilities.
Where available and appropriate, communication with a qualified healthcare professional may help assess the situation and determine whether further action is necessary. However, remote advice has limitations and cannot replace required clinical examination, emergency intervention, or facility-based treatment.
Patients should not be encouraged to attempt unsafe travel simply because a scheduled treatment is important.
If the situation suggests urgent clinical risk and ordinary access is unavailable, appropriate emergency medical assistance and coordination may be necessary.
Not every healthcare organization has the capability to provide outreach, specialized transportation, or alternative treatment during a disaster. Any such arrangements must reflect authorized services, available personnel, equipment, safety conditions, and applicable legal requirements.
Healthcare organizations therefore need to distinguish what they can provide directly from what requires assistance from external services or formally coordinated emergency response arrangements.
Preparedness cannot guarantee that every access problem will be resolved. It can, however, make it easier to recognize serious concerns, communicate relevant information, and seek appropriate assistance when routine arrangements are no longer possible.
After Flooding: Identifying Patients Whose Care Was Interrupted
The reopening of roads and healthcare facilities does not necessarily mean that continuity of care has been restored.
Patients may have missed appointments, treatments, medication refills, or scheduled assessments. Some may have received care elsewhere, while others may have remained without necessary treatment longer than expected.
A healthcare organization may know which appointments were missed without knowing why they were missed or what happened to the patients afterward.
This uncertainty deserves attention, particularly when the interrupted care may have been time-sensitive.
A practical recovery process may begin by reviewing affected appointments or treatment records, identifying where attendance or care could not be confirmed, and determining which patients may require follow-up.
The purpose is not simply to reschedule missed appointments in chronological order. Clinical teams may need to consider whether the interruption changed the urgency of care, whether the patient's condition may have deteriorated, and whether treatment was already provided at another facility.
Returning to the dialysis example, the treating service should not assume that a patient received dialysis elsewhere merely because the usual appointment was missed. Nor should it automatically arrange additional treatment without appropriate clinical assessment.
The team may need to confirm what care was actually received, review the patient's current condition, and determine the most suitable next step.
Similar considerations apply to other time-sensitive services. The consequences of a missed appointment depend on the treatment involved, the patient's circumstances, and the length of the interruption.
Patients may also continue facing barriers after flooding. Transportation costs, damaged homes, disrupted employment, lost documents, or limited family support can make returning to care difficult even when healthcare services are operating again.
Where appropriate, healthcare organizations may coordinate with community health services, patient support personnel, or authorized local partners to help patients reconnect with necessary care.
Follow-up should remain proportionate to clinical need, the organization's responsibilities, and applicable privacy requirements. A missed appointment alone does not establish that the patient experienced harm or that flooding caused the absence.
A facility should not consider continuity fully restored simply because it has reopened. A more meaningful question is whether patients whose care was interrupted have been appropriately assessed and supported in returning to necessary services.
Equity, Communication, and Protecting Patient Information
Flooding does not create the same access barriers for everyone.
A patient with reliable transportation, a working telephone, and family support may be able to arrange alternative care more easily than someone living alone, relying on public transportation, or experiencing communication difficulties.
People with disabilities, mobility limitations, cognitive impairment, or complex care needs may require additional assistance. However, vulnerability should not be assumed solely from age, disability, or diagnosis.
Individual circumstances matter, and patients should be involved in decisions about their care whenever possible.
Healthcare organizations also need to consider how personal and clinical information is handled when care is coordinated across facilities or with external organizations.
Contact details, treatment schedules, clinical records, and information about a patient's location may be necessary for care coordination, but they also require appropriate protection.
In Viet Nam, the Law on Personal Data Protection, Law No. 91/2025/QH15, took effect on January 1, 2026. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP provides further provisions and measures for implementing the law.
Article 26 of the law contains requirements specifically concerning personal health information and disclosures involving certain third-party healthcare and insurance providers. Article 19 identifies circumstances in which personal data may be processed without consent, including certain urgent situations involving the protection of life or health, subject to the conditions established by law.
These provisions are important because healthcare organizations should avoid two opposite assumptions: that patient information can never be shared without prior consent during an emergency, or that a disaster automatically permits unrestricted disclosure.
The appropriate legal basis, confidentiality, necessity and purpose of processing, and relevant professional responsibilities must all be considered. Emergency exceptions must be applied according to their actual legal conditions, not merely because flooding has occurred.
Where patients have identified appropriate family contacts or caregivers, those arrangements may assist communication during disruption, subject to applicable requirements.
Care coordination should also avoid placing unnecessary burdens on patients. Someone dealing with flooding, illness, and transportation difficulties may find it difficult to repeat medical information or coordinate several healthcare providers independently.
When feasible and legally appropriate, effective communication between healthcare organizations can reduce these burdens and support safer continuity of care.
What Recent Evidence From Viet Nam Tells Us
Recent experience in Viet Nam illustrates the importance of maintaining access to healthcare during disasters.
Typhoon Yagi affected northern Viet Nam in September 2024, bringing destructive winds, heavy rainfall, flooding, and landslides. WHO reported substantial damage to homes, infrastructure, and healthcare facilities, together with disruptions affecting water and electricity supplies.
The disaster showed how several hazards can affect healthcare delivery simultaneously.
More detailed evidence became available through a study published in the Journal of Public Health and Emergency on May 19, 2026, titled The Impact of Extreme Weather Events on Primary Healthcare Facilities in Vietnam: Results From a Cross-Sectional Survey of 128 Commune Health Centers Affected by Super Typhoon Yagi (2024).
The study surveyed 128 commune health centers selected from severely affected facilities across ten northern provinces. Data were collected in December 2024 through questionnaires completed by facility leaders, asking about infrastructure damage, workforce impacts, and service disruptions associated with the disaster, including conditions during the first week following the typhoon.
The findings showed substantial disruption to utilities, communications, and healthcare activities. Among the 128 responding facilities, 40.6% reported loss of electricity and 39.8% experienced complete communication failure.
For patient access, another finding is particularly relevant: 48.4% of the surveyed facilities reported some degree of reduction in their ability to transport patients to higher-level healthcare facilities.
This finding illustrates that the consequences of a disaster are not limited to what happens inside healthcare buildings. The ability to receive patients, coordinate referrals, and arrange onward care may also be compromised.
However, the findings require careful interpretation. The research focused on facilities severely affected by the disaster and was not designed to represent all commune health centers or hospitals in Viet Nam. The study relied on retrospectively reported experiences and examined an event involving wind, flooding, landslides, and other disruptions.
Its findings should therefore not be interpreted as demonstrating that flooding alone caused all the observed problems, or that the same percentages apply to healthcare facilities nationwide.
The study provides valuable evidence about how a major disaster can expose weaknesses in patient access, communication, transportation, and service delivery under severe conditions.
For Climate & Health Vietnam, this is a useful basis for professional learning, particularly when discussing what happens to patients when ordinary access arrangements fail.
Applying International Guidance Within Viet Nam's Legal Framework
Maintaining access to care during flooding requires decisions that reflect clinical needs, professional responsibilities, and applicable Vietnamese law.
The Law on Medical Examination and Treatment, Law No. 15/2023/QH15, effective January 1, 2024, provides the overarching framework for healthcare activities. Subsequent amendments are reflected in Consolidated Document No. 26/VBHN-VPQH, dated February 26, 2026.
Article 61 of the law addresses emergency care, including the assessment and treatment of emergency patients and arrangements for additional professional support or transfer when required.
These provisions are particularly relevant when a patient's condition requires urgent intervention beyond the capabilities of the current healthcare facility. Other provisions of the law address the rights and responsibilities of healthcare facilities concerning referrals and transfers in appropriate circumstances.
They must be distinguished from the administrative arrangements governing health insurance referrals and reimbursement.
For patients covered by health insurance, Circular 01/2025/TT-BYT provides rules concerning registration for insured care, referral and transfer arrangements, and related documentation. Its provisions must be read together with applicable amendments, including changes introduced by Circular 06/2026/TT-BYT.
In particular, Circular 06/2026/TT-BYT introduced changes concerning digital authentication of electronic referral and follow-up appointment documents, effective June 1, 2026. These changes concern documentation requirements and should not be confused with clinical criteria for emergency assessment or transfer.
The Law on Health Insurance, Law No. 25/2008/QH12, as amended, including by Law No. 51/2024/QH15, also provides relevant legal context.
These instruments affect how insured healthcare is organized and paid for. They do not replace the professional judgment required to determine whether a patient needs emergency assessment, urgent treatment, or clinically appropriate transfer.
A patient requiring emergency care should not have access to necessary assessment and treatment determined solely by whether an ordinary health insurance referral document has already been issued.
At the same time, this distinction should not be interpreted as eliminating all documentation, reimbursement, or procedural requirements. Clinical decisions and administrative obligations must be addressed according to their respective legal purposes.
During large-scale disasters, medical evacuation may require coordination under applicable emergency response arrangements. WHO's 2025 medical evacuation guidance provides useful international principles, but it does not establish independent authority for healthcare organizations or private entities to conduct disaster evacuation operations in Viet Nam.
Healthcare organizations must operate within their authorized scope of services, professional responsibilities, and arrangements established by competent authorities.
The appropriate response also varies between settings. A large hospital, a dialysis provider, an outpatient clinic, and a commune health station may have different capabilities and responsibilities. No single patient transfer or disaster response model should be assumed suitable for all organizations.
For CHVN, the appropriate role is to translate credible evidence, explain relevant considerations, and support professional learning and collaboration. Its resources should not be presented as substitutes for clinical protocols, regulatory requirements, official disaster response arrangements, or individualized professional judgment.
Making Patient Access Part of Flood-Related Healthcare Preparedness
Flooding preparedness is often discussed in terms of infrastructure, emergency supplies, and maintaining facility operations. These are important concerns, but they do not fully capture the experience of patients whose treatment depends on reaching healthcare services.
A dialysis unit may remain open while a patient misses treatment because the road is impassable. A referral hospital may have available beds while ambulance access remains unsafe. A clinic may reopen without knowing which patients experienced important interruptions in treatment.
These situations require attention to what happens between the patient and the healthcare service, not only what happens inside the facility.
Before flooding, healthcare organizations can identify patients who may face serious consequences if treatment is interrupted and consider whether appropriate communication or alternative arrangements can be made.
During the disruption, attention shifts to clinical assessment, reliable information, safe access, and coordination when ordinary treatment arrangements are no longer available.
After conditions improve, recovery includes identifying interrupted care, confirming what treatment patients received where feasible, and supporting their return to appropriate services.
These activities do not necessarily require a separate program or complex new system. They can build on existing clinical follow-up, referral coordination, patient communication, and emergency preparedness arrangements, adapted to the organization's responsibilities and resources.
For Climate & Health Vietnam, this patient-centered perspective is an important part of advancing climate-resilient healthcare. It connects the broader discussion of health system resilience with a practical question that matters directly to patients and families: can people continue receiving necessary care when the conditions around them change?
A healthcare service is not truly accessible simply because its doors remain open. Access also depends on whether patients can reach it safely, receive clinically appropriate alternatives when necessary, and return to ongoing care after disruption.
An important measure of continuity during flooding is not only whether healthcare facilities remain operational, but whether patients who need time-sensitive treatment can continue receiving safe and appropriate care.
Selected References and Policy Context
International guidance
World Health Organization. Medical Evacuation in Emergencies: A Guidance for Medical Teams and Specialized Care Teams. 2025.
World Health Organization. Health Service Continuity Planning for Public Health Emergencies: A Handbook for Health Facilities. Interim version for field testing. 2021.
World Health Organization. Operational Framework for Building Climate Resilient and Low Carbon Health Systems. 2023.
World Health Organization. Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Framework. 2019.
World Health Organization. WHO Emergency Support to Protect Thousands of Lives in Northern Viet Nam After Typhoon Yagi. September 13, 2024.
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What to Do When You Need Dialysis During an Emergency. May 15, 2024.
National Kidney Foundation. Planning for Emergencies: A Guide for People with Kidney Disease.
Selected Viet Nam evidence
Trang, D. T. H., and colleagues. The Impact of Extreme Weather Events on Primary Healthcare Facilities in Vietnam: Results From a Cross-Sectional Survey of 128 Commune Health Centers Affected by Super Typhoon Yagi (2024). Journal of Public Health and Emergency. 2026;10:12. Published May 19, 2026. DOI: 10.21037/jphe-2026-1-0004.
Viet Nam policy and regulatory context
National Assembly. Law on Medical Examination and Treatment No. 15/2023/QH15, effective January 1, 2024, as amended and reflected in Consolidated Document No. 26/VBHN-VPQH, dated February 26, 2026.
National Assembly. Law on Health Insurance No. 25/2008/QH12, as amended, including by Law No. 51/2024/QH15.
Ministry of Health. Circular 01/2025/TT-BYT, dated January 1, 2025, providing detailed provisions and guidance on implementation of certain articles of the Law on Health Insurance, as amended.
Ministry of Health. Circular 06/2026/TT-BYT, dated April 2, 2026, including amendments concerning the digital authentication of electronic healthcare referral and follow-up documents, effective June 1, 2026.
National Assembly. Law on Personal Data Protection No. 91/2025/QH15, effective January 1, 2026.
Government of Viet Nam. Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, dated December 31, 2025, providing detailed provisions and measures for implementation of the Law on Personal Data Protection, effective January 1, 2026.
Professional scope: This article is intended for professional education, evidence synthesis, and knowledge sharing. It does not constitute individualized clinical advice, emergency medical instructions, legal advice, a facility-specific disaster response plan, or regulatory, accreditation, or certification criteria. References to WHO and other international publications do not imply endorsement of Climate & Health Vietnam by those organizations. Healthcare organizations should follow applicable Vietnamese regulations, official emergency response arrangements, relevant professional guidance, and qualified clinical judgment when coordinating treatment, referrals, patient transfers, or medical evacuation during flooding.