general observations in connection with inspections 34 During the inspection of an LVM residential home, it emerged that an inmate could, where there was a shortage of space, live alone or together with other inmates in a unit that the home would otherwise use for care in isolation.37 In connection with an inspection of a youth facility, it was stated that a new inmate would be placed in a special “admission section” on arriving at the home.38 It can be the case that the person placed in “the admission section” would have to live there alone and the individual could then not be guaranteed contact with other inmates. When the Parliamentary Ombudsmen inspected another LVM residential home, it turned out that the home had a procedure that meant that the placements in the home’s “admission section” could be used to offer the inmates “a context where they can be allowed to relax and escape from the environment in which they have experienced a conflict”.39 In all three cases mentioned, doubt arose as to whether any inmate could be regarded, for long or short periods of time, as prevented from meeting other inmates and whether the inmate was therefore cared for in isolation or kept in isolation. It was not very easy to form a clear and reliable opinion on the matter on the basis of what had emerged during the inspections. In one of the records that concerned an inspection of an LVM residential home, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen also stated that care in isolation, or being kept in isolation, must occur only under the conditions in the Care of Abusers Act, section 34. For this reason, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen urged the LVM residential home to investigate to what extent inmates were placed in the admission sections or smaller units in such a way that the inmate was deemed to be cared for in isolation. 40 The observations that the Parliamentary Ombudsmen made in the other two inspections referred to also led to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen encouraging the residential homes to review their placement procedures for an individual in the “admission” section. The aim of this was to get the homes to change the kind of procedures that could result in an inmate becoming subject to care in isolation or kept in isolation. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen intends to raise the questions now discussed with the SiS’s central management. During the inspection of an LVU residential home, it was noted, in two cases, that the personnel had delayed, for several days, to make a record of the re-examination results of care in isolation. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen emphasised that it was important that this was documented without delay. It must also be possible to deduce on the basis of the documentation whether 37 Ref. no. 2515-2017. 38 Ref. no. 5672-2017. 39 Ref. no. 2514-2017. 40 Ref. no. 2515-2017.