43 Visits in 2015 The majority of patients felt that they were heard and looked after by both regular staff and those responsible for treatment. Several patients raised the problem, however, that it sometimes took a long time before a member of staff was able to accompany them to go outside. In the emergency psychiatry unit, several patients felt that there was an informal ban on discussing illness, religion and politics, among other things. The wording of one ’house rule’ related to clothing in the secure treatment unit could be perceived as degrading. After the visit Telemark Hospital has informed the Parliamentary Ombudsman that it has implemented new procedures to ensure that patients gain access to use-of-force decisions and that patients now have the possibility to add comments to the use-of-force records. The clinic has initiated a project to strengthen the milieu therapy offered to patients in the inpatient sections. Plans to upgrade and renovate the building that houses the geriatric psychiatry unit will be implemented in 2016 and plans will be drawn up for a more suitable building for the secure treatment unit. The house rules at the secure treatment unit have been changed so that the wording can no longer be perceived as degrading. Sørlandet Hospital, Kristiansand 7–9 September 2015 Partly announced visit The NPM’s visit to Sørlandet Hospital comprised six inpatient sections at the psychiatric unit in Kristiansand: two emergency units, two psychosis units, a secure treatment unit and a first psychosis unit. Findings The physical conditions at the different inpatient sections appeared to be good. All of the inpatient sections had access to outdoor areas, but three inpatient sections situated on the ground floor did not have outdoor areas that were designed to enable patients who had been committed to go outside when they wanted. The patients were informed both verbally and in writing about use-of-force decisions, but were not routinely given the grounds for such decisions in writing. Information about rights in connection with the use of force, nor about the supervisory commission, the County Governor or the Parliamentary Ombudsman, was not posted in the inpatient sections. The NPM noted that the psychiatric unit had endeavoured to reduce the use of all types of force, including the use of coercive measures. A review of documents indicated that mechanical restraints were, in most cases, used for a few hours or for less than 24 hours. Two cases gave cause for grave concern. One case concerned a patient in restraints where the duration of the measure had been determined in advance without the person responsible for the decision carrying out a continuous assessment of the patient’s situation and whether the criteria for the use of the restraint still applied. In another case, an elderly patient with dementia was restrained for six hours, although the risk of harm had passed. The patients’ next of kin were largely informed about the use of the coercive measures, so that their right to file a complaint etc. was safeguarded. In one case, however, two days passed before the next of kin were informed. The psychiatric unit had initiated a voluntary interview, a so-called follow-up interview, between the patient and health personnel following the use of force. This is one of the measures the units hopes will reduce the use of all types of force. It emerged during the visit, however, that follow-up interviews were not always offered and that they were a source of distress for some patients who did not find them useful. The NPM received some feedback from patients about the use of medication. Patients who had been forced to take medication largely perceived this as negative. All of the inpatient sections had at least one segregation room or unit. Some of the verandas at the segregation