33 Visits in 2015 According to the prison management, they sought, as far as possible, to avoid exclusion from company. The Juvenile Unit should continue to seek to avoid the exclusion of juveniles. In general, the Juvenile Unit appeared to have highly competent resources and to be capable of meeting the inmates’ individual needs and involve them in meaningful activities, within the framework set by the prison situation. After the visit After the visit, the Juvenile Unit has, among other things, drawn up action cards with specific procedures for following up inmates held in the security cell. The prison also has a continuous focus on preventing situations that can lead to the exclusion of an inmate from the company of others. Measures in this context include a high presence of staff, clarifying misunderstandings at an early stage, individual conversations and conflict mediation on site. Trondheim Prison 17–19 March 2015 Announced visit Trondheim Prison has the capacity to hold 194 inmates, divided between 155 high security places, 29 lower security places and ten places in a day release unit. Findings The review of administrative decisions and the supervision log related to the use of security cells and restraint beds showed material shortcomings in the registration of documents. A review of the decisions regarding exclusion from company indicated that the prison’s quality assurance of the case processing in these cases was inadequate. Some of the decisions were not signed, and decisions on when the measure should be discontinued were rare. In addition, the decisions rarely stated whether less intrusive measures such as partial exclusion had been considered. In some cases, inmates remained in the restricted section (A1) without an administrative decision until a place became available in the communal section. On the positive side, the NPM noted that the prison was clearly concerned with adapting activities to the needs of individual inmates. The fact that only 60 per cent of the inmates participated in activity programmes was a cause for concern, however. There were instances of unreasonably long stays in the restricted section, both for newly admitted inmates and for inmates being transferred to the restricted section following an exclusion decision. Despite the fact that activation measures were organised, many inmates stated that they found it hard to cope with the high degree of isolation and lack of contact with other inmates and staff. In general, the prison buildings were not adapted to today’s requirements for the execution of sentences. The inmates expressed varying experience regarding what information they received on their admission to the prison. Some foreign inmates said that they had not been offered an interview in a language they understood, even several weeks after they arrived at the prison. The prison’s admission interview form did not contain any questions relating to suicide risks. The management had initiated work to improve the admission procedures. The NPM made several recommendations relating to the health service at the prison. They particularly concerned the inmates’ access to both primary and specialist health services. Both inmates and staff stated that there was much noise and unrest in some of the communal sections, and that groups of inmates sometimes took control of the communal kitchen. Many inmates in these sections felt that, in general, the prison officers spent too little time in the communal areas. Some inmates also said that they felt unsafe, and that episodes of violence occurred that the prison officers did not register.