many working groups set up to implement the provisions of the 26 January 2016 Act on modernising the French health service, to encourage and support these processes. Discussions must be encouraged within each institution on how patients' freedom to come and go could be extended and on how the restrictions placed on their day-to-day comfort (use of mobile phones, contact with family members, outings, Internet access and so on) can be eased so that only those restrictions that are justified by care or security requirements associated with a patient's clinical condition are maintained. For its part, the CGLPL, in its future visits, will take a systematic approach to examining initiatives taken locally to extend patients' freedom to come and go and ease the restrictions imposed upon them. 3. The situation of interregional secure hospital units (UHSI) and specially-equipped hospital units (UHSA) In 2016, the CGLPL visited two interregional secure hospital units (UHSI) and two specially equipped hospital units (UHSA). These institutions are hospital departments designed to accommodate patients detained for periods of longer than 48 hours. UHSIs deliver somatic care while UHSAs specialise in psychiatric care. Through these visits it was possible to observe definite improvement in the way these unit s are run, particularly in terms of generally better relations between the medical services and prison administration, which now result in fairly flexible ways of doing things. In one of the institutions visited, the local agreement between the two authorities has still not been signed even though the unit has been up and running for almost three years, and day-to-day relations are consequently not as smooth as they should be. The question of care confidentiality needs to be kept a careful eye on, something which is not the case across the board, since the inspectors visited one unit where warders attend almost all health checkups. Fortunately this situation is not the norm, as it can create difficulties for some nursing staff during their care of patients whose criminal record has received local media coverage. In the four institutions visited, admission into a hospital unit brings about a curtailment in the rights associated with detention: no information on the length of hospital stay; detained patients are not allowed to manage their belongings as they would have wished; the liaison forms between the institutions and the unit are either incomplete or missing, such that escort levels are decided entirely arbitrarily; neither the prison rehabilitation and probation service nor social services are involved, such that the rehabilitation efforts in progress are interrupted and sentence adjustment projects are not followed properly; the detention and visit conditions are hardly propitious (no exercise yards or activities, visiting rooms with separation walls, delays in canteen service, delays in the authorised telephone numbers being handed out, etc.). Moreover, many detained people refuse hospitalisation because some leisure activities are not allowed (walks or smoking for example). These problems are often all considered in the light of a matter that appears to be very technical in nature: that of detained persons changing prison register number upon being committed to a hospital unit. The result is a continuity problem which gives rise to significant logistical headaches and, for the patient, concerns which are frankly not going to help him or her get better. 27