94 9. Persons deprived of their liberty at the places of detention visited by the NPM beds for out-patients). At the time of the visit, the acute unit had 30 patients, the rehabilitation unit had 31, and there were 7 persons in the out-patient sanatorium. Regarding the staff employed, the psychiatric ward satisfied the legal requirements necessary for the performance of its duties. Psychiatric care for patients was ensured by 5 medical specialists (including the head of the ward), 2 medical specialist trainees, 5 psychologists, 3 social workers with a tertiary degree, 3 healthcare administrators and 38 nurses; however, the latter included only one qualified nurse, and only one fourth of the nurses had a specialized qualification in psychiatry. The placement conditions were appropriate on the already refurbished first floor: the walls were pleasant and colourful, and clean and modern sanitary units had been installed. In some of the wards of the second floor, patients had limited space to move around. The high temperature, due to the lack of air-conditioning and shading, endangered work as well as the condition of the patients. The lack of safety glasses and/or bars preventing breakout was dangerous. The mixed-gender use of the lavatories violated the right to human dignity, and the lack of basic sanitation products (i.e. toilet paper, hand disinfectant) could potentially lead to infection. Taking care of those patients who were primarily treated with problems other than mental disorders was overwhelming for the personnel. The hospital management had taken certain measures with a view to preserving the physical and mental well-being of the employees: it used a matrix-type rotation between the wards, it provided recreational opportunities, highstandard further trainings and professional programmes for the staff in order to mitigate the risk of burnout and attenuate the turnover rate. The patients complained about being placed in the same ward as persons in terminal stage. Changing the patients’ nappies in front of others violates the sense of decency of patients, and causes an impropriety in connection with the right to human dignity stipulated by Article II of the Fundamental Law of Hungary. The placement of patients in an agitated state and those suffering from dementia is also a potentially dangerous factor, and increases the chance of conflicts between the patients. The NPM concluded that the patients’ right to self-determination and to seeking legal remedy is infringed by the fact that the reason for their admission into medical care had not been indicated on the patient admission request form. The NPM objected to the fact that in some cases, the signatures of the patient and of the person entitled to make a statement were missing. Similarly, the right to self-determination is violated and the patient’s human dignity is endangered if it is not clearly specified prior to an intervention who has initiated it and whether all necessary information