general observations in connection with inspections similar to closed rooms with a lattice roof.29 In connection with the inspections in 2017, it was established that several remand prisons still had exercise yards that did no fulfil these basic requirements.30 In a report to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen in 2017, the Prison and Probation Service has stated that the authority has the intention, to the extent that practical and actual conditions allow for it, to rectify the deficiencies noted in the design of the exercise yards. During the inspection of Huddinge remand prison, a follow-up on the design of the admission area was also carried out. Measures have been taken that have resulted in the admission area now being assessed as suitable, on the basis of integrity and safety aspects. During the inspection, a renovation was carried out on the premises used when an inmate is to be discharged or spend time outside the remand prison, e.g., in connection with transport to proceedings or hospital visits. Following a request from the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, the Prison and Probation Service has submitted a report regarding measures taken to ensure that these premises are suitable, based on integrity and safety aspects.31 Several of the remand prisons inspected have, in order to ensure access to a doctor, on a 24 hour basis, entered into a “standby doctor agreement”. During previous inspections, it was noted that the agreements at Huddinge, Kronoberg and Sollentuna remand prisons were worded in such a way that it was only possible to consult a doctor on standby after 18.00. It was so forth not possible to consult a standby doctor if a general practitioner was absent during the day. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has previously urged the Prison and Probation Service to review the agreements making it possible to summon a doctor regardless of what time of day the need arises. In connection with the inspections in 2017, it was noted that there had been no change in this respect.32 During the inspection at Kronoberg remand prison, it was noted that a individual person who had, according to the documentation, been taken into custody pursuant to the Care of Intoxicated Persons Act, had been strapped down. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has decided to examine in a special enquiry the question of whether it is possible to take such action against a person taken into custody pursuant to the act.33 29 JO 2016/17 p. 198, Ref. no. 7173-2014. 30 Ref. nos. 416-2017, 417-2017, 418-2017 and 419-2017. 31 Ref. no. 416-2017. 32 Ref. nos. 416-2017, 417-2017 and 419-2017. 33 Ref. no. 417-2017, enquiry ref. no. 279-2018 31