Westcoast International Dental Clinic, Vietnam: registration, credentials, and corporate-structure review

Disclosure. Dr. Maloney has no commercial relationship with Westcoast International Dental Clinic, with its BVI-registered parent entity, with Công ty TNHH Một Thành Viên Chăm Sóc Sức Khỏe Bờ Biển Tây, with Dr. Andrew H.F. Tsang, with Dr. Hứa Thị Thúy An, or with any individual named in this review. She did not receive payment, travel, accommodation, equipment, or any other consideration in connection with this piece. The publication’s standing disclosures are at /disclosures/. Last reviewed: 2026-05-09.

This is the fourth Vietnamese clinic review the publication has published in seven days, and the second on the same axis as the Elite Dental, Ho Chi Minh City review — registration, credentials, and accreditation. The findings line up differently again. Westcoast International Dental Clinic is older than Elite, smaller in named clinical roster, foreign-founded rather than Vietnamese-founded, and operates under a corporate structure that — on the documents on file — terminates in a holding company in the British Virgin Islands. Each of those facts changes the shape of the verification work, and the framework moves with the shape.

The headline finding is MIXED, and that word is doing real work. On the credentials axis the framework asks about, Westcoast does what most Vietnamese clinics marketing to international patients do not: it discloses a named technical-medical-director with a practising-licence number on the Vietnamese-language site, and the founder’s credential traces to a real Canadian dental school with a real graduation year. On the corporate-structure axis, it does something different from every other clinic the publication has reviewed: it operates through a British Virgin Islands holding entity. That is not, on its own, a clinical-quality finding. It is a warranty-jurisdiction and accountability finding, and it matters precisely on the question every international patient should ask before paying a deposit: if something goes wrong, who is the legal counterparty, and where is the dispute resolved.

This review is a desk review on the same documents the prior three reviews have turned on: (a) the claims published on the clinic’s English- and Vietnamese-language marketing properties, (b) primary-source records on the named credentials and the operating entity, and (c) the publicly searchable provincial Department of Health practising-licence registries. It is not a clinical assessment of patient outcomes — there is no procedure footage to score and there is no on-site visit. The five-category clinical-standards framework will apply when patient-outcome evidence becomes available. What this review assesses is the upstream axes of credentials, registration, and corporate accountability.

Finding 1 — The founder credential traces to a named, verifiable, Canadian dental program

Stated claim. Dr. Andrew H.F. Tsang is named on third-party professional-network records as the founder of Westcoast International Dental Clinic. His published academic credential is DMD, University of British Columbia, 1997.

What independently corroborates it. The University of British Columbia Faculty of Dentistry is a public Canadian university dental school established in 1964, accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of Canada. It is one of ten Canadian university-based dental programs operating under the Royal College of Dentists of Canada framework. Practitioners trained at UBC are typically registered to practise in British Columbia through the British Columbia College of Oral Health Professionals (formerly the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia, modernised in 2023), which operates a public registrant-lookup tool at apps.oralhealthbc.ca/apps/public-register/. The DMD-UBC-1997 credential is the kind of credential a patient can verify in three steps: confirm UBC’s Faculty of Dentistry exists (it does), confirm the registration body covering UBC graduates exists (BCCOHP, it does), and confirm the named practitioner appears in the registrant-lookup database (a step the patient can take herself).

Why this matters for this review. A claim of “Canadian-trained dentist” is the kind of claim that international dental-tourism aggregators reproduce for many clinics. The Westcoast claim is different on three points. The named institution is specific (UBC, not “a Canadian university”). The named degree is specific (DMD, the standard Canadian dental degree, not a marketing-style “Doctor of Dental Medicine equivalent”). The graduation year is specific (1997). All three together produce a claim that is falsifiable on a public registry — and that is the specific epistemic posture the publication treats as evidence-grade. Compare with the Greenfield review’s Finding 1, where a “Bachelor of Dental Surgery from Hanoi Medical University” was paired with an arithmetically implausible 5,000-implant case count attributed to a single named clinician; or with the Elite Dental review’s Finding 1, where the founder’s career path traced across institutions and dates without an inflated headline volume claim. Westcoast’s founder claim sits closer to Elite Dental’s posture than Greenfield’s: a specific credential at a specific institution at a specific date.

What the publication has not, in this review, individually confirmed. The publication has not, at the date of this review, performed the BCCOHP public-registrant-lookup query for Dr. Andrew H.F. Tsang. The lookup is an interactive form, not a static page that resolves to a stable URL the publication can cite. The verifiable fact, on the documents on file, is that the lookup tool exists, is operated by the relevant Canadian regulator, and is open to the public. A patient considering Westcoast can perform the lookup herself in under a minute. A finding that the named credential traces to a UBC DMD program a patient can verify herself is a stronger finding for this publication than a single-line confirmation that the publication itself ran a query and saw a result. The framework’s job is to surface what a patient can check; it has done that here.

Finding 2 — The Vietnamese-language site publishes a named technical-medical-director and a practising-licence number, but labels it in a way that creates a Greenfield-shaped gap

This is the most important finding of the review and the one where the framework moves on technical detail.

What Westcoast publishes on the Vietnamese-language site (nhakhoawestcoast.vn). The Vietnamese-language site lists, in the position consumer-facing material conventionally uses for the operating licence:

• Practising-licence number: 004413/HCM-CCHN
• Issue date: 30 November 2012
• Issuing authority: Sở Y tế TP.HCM (Ho Chi Minh City Department of Health)
• Named holder: Dr. Hứa Thị Thúy An, listed as the technical-medical-director (người chịu trách nhiệm chuyên môn)

This is meaningfully more disclosure than Greenfield Dental Clinic publishes (which is none of the above), and meaningfully more than Elite Dental publishes on the equivalent surface. A consumer-facing surface that names the responsible technical person and discloses her practising-licence number is in a different epistemic posture from a surface that publishes a four-dentist marketing roster without licence numbers for any of them.

The gap. The number 004413/HCM-CCHN is in the standard Sở Y tế TP.HCM format for a chứng chỉ hành nghề (practising-licence — the licence that permits an individual practitioner to practise medicine and is issued to a person, not a clinic). It is not the standard format for a giấy phép hoạt động (operating-licence — the licence that permits a specific clinic site to operate, issued to the corporate entity at a specific address). Under Vietnamese practice-licensing rules — particularly under the 2023 Law on Medical Examination and Treatment that converted CCHN to a five-year-renewable giấy phép hành nghề from 1 January 2024 — the two documents are distinct, serve different regulatory purposes, and are issued in different administrative tracks.

What Westcoast appears to publish, in the position consumer-facing material conventionally uses for the clinic’s operating licence, is the technical-medical-director’s individual practising licence. That is a meaningfully better disclosure than nothing, and it is also not the same disclosure as the operating licence the framework asks for. The two facts are both true, and they sit alongside each other.

Two readings of this gap are possible, and both have implications for the patient.

Reading A — labelling slip. The clinic does hold a current giấy phép hoạt động for each of its three clinic sites (Norfolk Mansion, Thảo Điền, West Lake), the document numbers are on file with Sở Y tế TP.HCM and Sở Y tế Hà Nội respectively, and the consumer-facing surface mistakenly publishes the technical director’s CCHN where the giấy phép hoạt động number should appear. Under this reading, the clinic can produce all three giấy phép hoạt động numbers on request to a patient who asks, and the gap closes immediately.

Reading B — incomplete disclosure. The clinic publishes what it has chosen to publish, which is the named technical director’s CCHN, and the giấy phép hoạt động for each clinic site exists in the regulator’s file system but is not produced in the consumer-facing batch. Under this reading, the gap is the same gap Greenfield Dental Clinic FAILed on, with the difference that Westcoast publishes one identifiable CCHN where Greenfield publishes none. The patient should ask in writing for the giấy phép hoạt động number for each site.

The CCHN that is published is itself verifiable. The Sở Y tế TP.HCM operates a public practising-licence lookup tool at thongtin.medinet.org.vn, accessible to anyone, that supports search by both licence number and full name. A patient considering Westcoast can verify that practising-licence 004413/HCM-CCHN was issued to a Dr. Hứa Thị Thúy An in November 2012 with a registered scope, and that the registration is current. The Vietnamese national Ministry-of-Health practitioner registry at qlhanhnghekcb.gov.vn also supports this verification at national level. This makes the gap in Reading B narrower in practice than the same gap was at Greenfield — a patient does have a piece of registry-traceable information on the Westcoast surface that does not exist on the Greenfield surface — but it does not close the gap.

The five questions in the section below — the same five questions every review of this kind asks — are how a patient closes the gap before deposit.

Finding 3 — The operating company is a British Virgin Islands holding entity with a Vietnamese-registered subsidiary, and the patient should know this before signing a warranty

This finding is on a different axis from Findings 1 and 2 and is the structural concern that drives the review’s overall posture.

What is on the public corporate record. The English-language consumer site (westcoastinternational.com) publishes its registered office as Vistra Corporation Services Centre, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands. Vistra is a global corporate-services firm that provides registered-office services in offshore jurisdictions; the BVI Road Town address is the registered office of many BVI-incorporated holding entities. The Vietnamese-language site (nhakhoawestcoast.vn) publishes the operating Vietnamese subsidiary as Công ty TNHH Một Thành Viên Chăm Sóc Sức Khỏe Bờ Biển Tây (Westcoast Healthcare One Member Limited Company) — a single-member Vietnamese LLC at the registered Ho Chi Minh City address.

The structure, plain language: the patient pays the Vietnamese LLC for treatment performed in Vietnam by Vietnamese-registered clinicians, and the Vietnamese LLC is wholly owned by an entity registered in the BVI under a corporate-services-firm address. This is a standard 100%-foreign-invested-entity structure for a Western-founded business operating in Vietnam, and it is permitted under Vietnamese foreign-investment law. The structure is not, on its own, a regulatory violation, and the publication is not asserting that it is. Westcoast’s English-language site explicitly markets the “100% Foreign Invested Dental Clinic” status as a feature, and within the framework of Vietnamese foreign-investment law, that status is real.

What it does mean for the patient. Three concrete questions follow from the structure, all of which a patient with a five-figure quote in hand has the right to ask before deposit.

(a) Which entity is the warrantor on the dental warranty? Westcoast publishes an “Our Dental Guarantee” page in its consumer-facing navigation but does not, on the surface reviewed for this piece, publish the warranty terms in full or specify the warrantor entity. If the warrantor is the Vietnamese LLC, the warranty is enforceable in Vietnam under Vietnamese law, and the patient’s recourse — if a complication arises after she returns home — is a claim against a Vietnamese single-member LLC. If the warrantor is the BVI parent entity, the warranty is enforceable, in principle, against an entity in a jurisdiction where the patient has no residency, no consumer-protection coverage, and no practical mechanism to bring a small-value clinical claim. Either answer is a real answer; the patient is owed which one applies.

(b) What survives a corporate restructuring of the Vietnamese subsidiary? Single-member LLCs in Vietnam can be reorganised, dissolved, or transferred. If the Vietnamese subsidiary that issued the warranty is restructured during the warranty period — and dental warranties on full-arch implant work are commonly written for ten to twenty years — the legal counterparty the patient signed with may not exist by the time she presents with a complication. The warranty’s continuity-of-counterparty clause (if any) is the document a patient should read before deposit.

(c) What is the dispute-resolution forum? A patient-initiated complaint about a Vietnamese clinical procedure performed in Vietnam will be resolved, by default, in Vietnamese consumer or civil courts. A warranty-clause election of BVI law or a different forum changes that. The patient should know which forum applies, in writing, before deposit.

The publication is not making a finding that the BVI structure is dispositive against the clinic. It is making the narrower finding that the structure is consequential and that the consumer-facing surface — the surface where the patient makes her decision — does not, in the materials reviewed, surface the warranty-jurisdiction question. A clinic that publishes a “100% Foreign Invested” tag-line as a quality signal should also publish the entity behind that tag-line and the warrantor entity on the warranty. The first is published; the second, on the documents on file, is not.

Finding 4 — The “team of dentists from Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and Vietnam” is named generically, not individually, on the public surface

Stated claim. The Vietnamese site publishes the named technical-medical-director (Dr. Hứa Thị Thúy An) with her practising-licence number, and the English-language site lists clinicians by first name only and country grouping (“Dr. Andrew, Dr. Tien, Dr. Tram Anh, Dr. Dung, Dr. Nhu An…” and aggregate roster claim “team of dentists, specialists and support team come together from countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Japan, Italy and Vietnam”).

The gap. A patient deciding among clinics, on the basis of a multinational dentist roster as a quality signal, cannot verify any individual clinician on that roster against the Sở Y tế Hà Nội or Sở Y tế TP.HCM practising-licence registries, because the public-facing surface does not publish the surname or the practising-licence number for the individual clinicians in the multinational roster. This is the same Greenfield-shape gap, with three differences:

1. The technical-medical-director is named with full Vietnamese name and licence number (Finding 2), which is one piece of registry-traceable information the public surface produces. That is an asymmetry the patient can exploit: the licence number that is published can be checked.
2. The roster pattern is mass-marketing, not single-clinician inflation. Greenfield’s failure mode was a single named clinician with a 5,000-case figure that did not match the registry. Westcoast’s pattern is the inverse: it markets nationality breadth without surnames, dates, or licence numbers, which is harder to falsify per individual and also harder to verify per individual. The structural asymmetry favours the clinic on this axis.
3. For non-Vietnamese clinicians on the roster, the registration question is doubly material. Under Vietnamese practice-licensing rules, foreign-trained dentists practising at Vietnamese clinic sites are required to hold a Vietnamese practising-licence (chứng chỉ hành nghề / giấy phép hành nghề) registered to that site. A “Canadian dentist working at our Vietnam clinic” is not, regulatorily, the same as a “Canadian dentist registered to practise in Vietnam under a Sở Y tế-issued practising licence at this specific clinic site.” The first is a marketing claim; the second is a regulatory fact. The patient is owed the second.

The questions for the patient to ask. The five questions in the section below, applied to Westcoast specifically, ask the clinic to produce — in writing — the surname, the chứng chỉ hành nghề / giấy phép hành nghề number, the registered scope, and the registered clinic site for every clinician who would be the surgeon-of-record on the procedure she has been quoted for. A clinic that responds in days establishes a different posture from one that does not.

Finding 5 — The “50,000+ cases / Over 25 Years” headline figures are in marketing-approximation territory and the arithmetic does not break

Stated claim. The English-language homepage publishes “50,000+ cases” and “Over 25 Years of Complex & Cosmetic Dental Care.”

The arithmetic. The clinic was founded in 2004 (per consistent third-party corroboration on the founding year). At the date of this review (May 2026), that is 22 years, not 25. The “Over 25 Years” figure is either counted from Dr. Tsang’s UBC graduation (1997, which would be 29 years and would be a clinician-career figure rather than a clinic figure), or it is a marketing approximation that has not been updated against the calendar. Either reading is a marketing imprecision rather than a falsifiable claim of clinical performance.

The 50,000-cases figure, divided by 22 years across three clinics, is approximately 2,272 cases per year across the system, or 750 cases per year per clinic site. At ~240 working days per year, that is approximately three cases per day per site, where “case” is presumably defined to include all clinical encounters — routine cleanings, check-ups, fillings, extractions, restorative work, and surgical work in aggregate. That figure is consistent with what a multi-dentist, three-site clinic can plausibly produce. The arithmetic does not break in the way that Greenfield’s 5,000-implant single-clinician figure broke.

The caveat. A “50,000+ cases” figure that aggregates all clinical encounters is not the same statistic as “50,000+ implants” or “50,000+ full-arch restorations.” A patient comparing Westcoast against a clinic that publishes a similar figure should ask which of the following the figure means: (a) all clinical encounters since 2004, (b) all surgical procedures, (c) all implant placements, or (d) all full-arch implant rehabilitations. The four numbers, for any plausible Vietnamese dental clinic, differ by an order of magnitude or more. The single-headline-number form of the claim does not specify which.

This is the same general point made in Finding 5 of the Elite Dental review about under-specified statistics: a number without a definition is a marketing approximation, regardless of which clinic publishes it.

Overall finding — MIXED

The plain-language verdict. Westcoast International Dental Clinic is, on the documents on file at the date of this review, an established three-site Vietnamese dental clinic with a foreign-trained founder whose credential traces to a real Canadian dental school, a named technical-medical-director with a publicly searchable practising-licence number on the Vietnamese-language site, and a corporate structure that operates through a British Virgin Islands holding entity above a Vietnamese single-member LLC. That set of facts is a meaningfully different starting position from Greenfield Dental Clinic, where the marketed clinical roster did not match the regulatory record at all; from Elite Dental, where the load-bearing positive evidence was an AACI accreditation under a verifiable date and score; and from Worldwide Dental & Plastic Surgery Hospital, where the licensing baseline was real but a documented Category 5 failure was on file.

The MIXED score reflects two things at once. The credentials axis the framework asks about clears, and clears with verifiable specifics that the patient can check herself. The corporate-structure axis introduces a warranty-jurisdiction concern that the consumer-facing surface does not surface. Both findings are real. Neither one cancels the other. The patient making a 25,000-AUD full-arch decision is being shown a clinic whose founder credential she can verify, whose technical-medical-director’s licence she can verify, whose corporate parent is in the BVI, and whose warranty terms — and warrantor entity — she has not been shown on the public surface.

What this review is not. This is not a clinical assessment of patient outcomes at Westcoast. The publication has not reviewed clinical photographs of completed cases, post-treatment radiographs, or first-hand accounts from named patients treated at this clinic. The five-category clinical-standards framework — Categories 1 (clinical decision-making), 2 (procedure execution), 3 (infection control), 4 (documentation), and 5 (post-treatment support) — requires evidence of specific clinical decisions and specific procedures of the kind that was visible in the Metal Dental Clinic Da Nang review (procedure footage) and the Worldwide review (a documented patient complaint). Neither evidence base is on file here. The MIXED finding is on the registration, credentials, and corporate-structure axes only.

What an international patient should ask in writing before deposit

The same five questions the publication’s other Vietnamese clinic reviews close with, applied to Westcoast specifically. They are the minimum a patient flying in from Sydney, Auckland, London, or Toronto with a five-figure quote in hand has the right to ask, and a clinic confident in its record answers them in days.

1. Please provide the giấy phép hoạt động (operating-licence) number for each of the three Westcoast clinic sites — Norfolk Mansion (Lý Tự Trọng), Thảo Điền (Nguyễn Bá Lân), and West Lake (Syrena Center, Xuân Diệu) — the issuing Sở Y tế authority, the issue date, and the most recent annex listing all registered practitioners at each site with their chứng chỉ hành nghề / giấy phép hành nghề number and registered scope. If the practising-licence number 004413/HCM-CCHN published on the Vietnamese-language site is the technical-medical-director’s individual licence rather than the clinic operating-licence, please confirm which entity the giấy phép hoạt động is held by and produce the document number.

2. For the named clinician(s) who would be the surgeon-of-record on the procedure I have been quoted for — including any non-Vietnamese clinician on the marketed multinational roster — please provide the surname, the chứng chỉ hành nghề / giấy phép hành nghề number, registered scope (and specifically whether surgical implant placement is an explicitly registered scope on the licence), date of most recent renewal, and the registered clinic site at which the licence is held.

3. Please confirm the corporate structure: the legal name and tax code of the Vietnamese operating subsidiary, the legal name and registration number of the British Virgin Islands parent entity, and the relationship between the two. Please also confirm any ownership relationship to other Vietnamese healthcare entities operating at the same or related addresses.

4. Please provide the full warranty terms in writing — duration, warrantor entity (Vietnamese subsidiary or BVI parent), covered failure modes, exclusions, dispute-resolution forum and governing law, and the mechanism by which the warranty survives any restructuring, transfer, or dissolution of the warrantor entity during the warranty period.

5. Please confirm the named clinician(s) who would be present at all stages of the procedure (consultation, surgical placement, prosthetic delivery, follow-up review), the anaesthesia protocol and the anaesthetist’s presence throughout if sedation or general anaesthesia is involved, and the post-discharge contact pathway if a complication arises after I return to my home country.

What would change this assessment

On Finding 1 (founder credential): No change required; the credential traces to a publicly verifiable regulator. The publication will record any inconsistency the BCCOHP public registrant lookup surfaces if a reader produces it.

On Finding 2 (the CCHN-vs-giấy-phép-hoạt-động gap): Publication on the consumer-facing About page of the giấy phép hoạt động number for each of the three clinic sites, the issuing Sở Y tế, the issue date, and the practitioner annex for each site, would close this gap. The CCHN that is currently published can remain; the giấy phép hoạt động is the document conventionally published in this position, and adding it would close the gap.

On Finding 3 (corporate structure / warranty jurisdiction): A consumer-facing disclosure of the warrantor entity on the dental warranty, the dispute-resolution forum, the governing law, and the continuity-of-counterparty mechanism, would close the warranty-jurisdiction concern. The structure itself — Vietnamese subsidiary under a BVI parent — does not need to change; the disclosure does.

On Finding 4 (multinational roster verifiability): Publication of surnames, chứng chỉ hành nghề / giấy phép hành nghề numbers, and registered clinic sites for each named clinician in the roster, on the consumer-facing About page, would close this gap.

On Finding 5 (headline figures): Updating the “Over 25 Years” figure against the calendar (the clinic is 22 years old at the date of this review) and specifying what the “50,000+ cases” figure counts (all clinical encounters / surgical procedures / implant placements / full-arch rehabilitations) would close the under-specification finding.

On the clinical-standards framework (Categories 1–5): The framework will apply when patient-outcome evidence becomes available. Patients who have been treated at Westcoast and are willing to share treatment records and post-treatment imaging (anonymised, with written consent) for inclusion in a future review can contact the publication at the address on the about page.

Bottom line

The publication finds Westcoast International Dental Clinic, Vietnam, MIXED on the registration, credentials, and corporate-structure axes — PASS on credentials, with a Greenfield-shaped gap on operating-licence disclosure, and a CONCERN on the BVI corporate structure that the consumer-facing surface does not surface in the warranty-decision context. The founder’s UBC DMD credential traces. The Vietnamese-language site names a technical-medical-director with a publicly searchable practising-licence number, which is more disclosure than most Vietnamese clinics provide. The English-language site publishes a multinational roster that is not individually verifiable on the public surface. The operating company is a British Virgin Islands holding entity above a Vietnamese single-member LLC, and the warrantor on the dental warranty is not specified on the consumer-facing surface.

The patient comparing Westcoast against the other clinics in the publication’s review pool has, on the documents on file, a clinic with real credentialing depth, real twenty-two-year operating history, and real warranty-jurisdiction questions she should resolve in writing before deposit. The five questions above are the resolution mechanism. A clinic willing to answer them, in days and in writing, is in a different posture from a clinic that does not — and that test applies equally regardless of which clinic the patient is considering.

If material new evidence is produced — by Westcoast, by patients treated there, by Sở Y tế TP.HCM or Sở Y tế Hà Nội, or by independent reviewers — this assessment will be updated and dated. The corrections policy is at /corrections/.

Methodology for this publication’s clinic reviews is at /methodology/. The five-category clinical-standards framework, of which this review applies the registration-credentials-and-corporate-structure axes only, is at the clinical-standards framework page. The companion clinic reviews on the same and adjacent axes are: Greenfield Dental Clinic, Hanoi — FAIL on the registration and credentials axis where the marketed roster did not match the registry; Elite Dental, Ho Chi Minh City — PASS, with named gaps, on the same axis where the load-bearing claims corroborate on primary or near-primary sources; Worldwide Dental & Plastic Surgery Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City — Concern, with a Category 5 failure on a documented case; and Metal Dental Clinic, Da Nang — FAIL on observable procedure-execution evidence. The structural reasons international patients cannot easily distinguish a clinic with a documented credential from a clinic with a marketed credential are documented in the dental tourism trust gap. The country-by-country cost reference, including the price ranges Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City clinics quote against, is at the dental implant costs by country page. For the weekly read of the regulatory record on cross-border dental care, see This Week in Dental Tourism. Standing disclosures are at /disclosures/.

Sources

1. Westcoast International Dental Clinic public English-language marketing site, domain westcoastinternational.com. Reviewed 2026-05-09. Named for traceability; the publication does not link to clinic marketing sites.
2. Westcoast International Dental Clinic public Vietnamese-language marketing site, domain nhakhoawestcoast.vn. Reviewed 2026-05-09. Named for traceability.
3. University of British Columbia Faculty of Dentistry — the named institution at which Dr. Andrew H.F. Tsang received the DMD (1997). Public Canadian university dental school, accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of Canada.
4. British Columbia College of Oral Health Professionals (formerly the College of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia) — the regulatory body for dentists trained in BC. Operates a public registrant-lookup tool. Named for traceability of the credential-verification step a patient can take.
5. Sở Y tế TP.HCM (Ho Chi Minh City Department of Health) public practising-licence lookup portal, thongtin.medinet.org.vn — supports public search by practising-licence number and full name. Named as the relevant primary-source registry for the CCHN number 004413/HCM-CCHN published on the Vietnamese-language site.
6. Vietnamese national Ministry-of-Health practitioner registry — qlhanhnghekcb.gov.vn — operated by the Cục Quản lý Khám Chữa Bệnh, Bộ Y tế. National-level registration, licensing, and operating-licence-file lookup for healthcare practitioners and facilities.
7. Vietnam Law on Medical Examination and Treatment 2023 (effective 1 January 2024). Published by Bộ Y tế (Ministry of Health), Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Named for traceability of the CCHN-to-giấy-phép-hành-nghề conversion regime referenced in Finding 2.
8. Vistra Corporation Services Centre, Wickhams Cay II, Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands — published as the registered office on the English-language consumer-facing site. Named for traceability of the corporate-structure finding in Finding 3.