trained on how to prepare and complete medical documents (some centers didn’t have a register for drug prescriptions); ● there wasn’t available a properly arranged and equipped psychological office (Anina Home for Adults and the Elderly); ● deficiencies were found in the communication with the public social assistance services within the domicile town halls of the beneficiaries; ● poor hygiene of some bedrooms and bathrooms; - psychiatric hospitals: ● in the General Clinical Observation Sheets (FOCG) the consent to hospitalization was not found, although the admissions were considered voluntary; in the Săpunari Psychiatric Hospital, the only existing consent in the FOCG was the informed consent of the patient for medical procedures, signed by the patient but which did not mention in all cases the medical procedure for which the consent was requested; in the Psychiatric and Hospital for Safety Measures Săpoca was found the situation of 6 people who, being in an institutionalized quarantine center, presented psychomotor agitation; those persons were rushed to the quarantine center and hospitalized; in the FOCG were not found the forms of informed consent for hospitalization; moreover, one of the patients expressly requested to be discharged, but the discharge was made only at the end of the quarantine period, after obtaining the approval from the Buzau Public Health Directorate; ● in the patient observation sheets was found a list of patients' obligations, signed by patients, but not a list of their rights; ● restraint and isolation measures were applied without complying with the relevant legislation (restraints were applied in the ward where the patient was hospitalized, along with other patients, which is contrary to the CPT Rules; it was not clear who performed the restraint, in the register for restraints there was no mention in this respect, the register also lacked a heading on the degree of restriction - partial or total - in case of restraint, and the column on monitoring vital functions was not completed properly - the values of vital functions were not specified for each monitoring visit); there were no isolation rooms arranged according to the legal provisions in force and the patients were isolated in spaces that had other purposes; ● in the Săpunari Psychiatric Hospital, according to the “Patient Restraint” procedure drawn up in the hospital, patients were required to sign a Consent Form when applying the restraint measure, the procedure not explicitly indicating when the form was completed; the hospital representatives could not specify to the NPM team at what time this form was presented to the patient and in none of the FOCG, randomly verified, was the consent to the application of the restraints found; ● The involuntary hospitalization commission was not composed according to the provisions of Law no. 487/2002, republished, respectively of 3 members appointed by the hospital manager - 2 psychiatrists and a doctor of other specialty or a representative of the civil society (Siret Chronic Psychiatric Hospital, Săpoca Psychiatric Hospital for Safety Measures); ● there was a shortage of medical and auxiliary personnel, as well as security personnel, and their proper continuous professional training was not performed; ● there were no actions to promote ethical values among the medical staff during this period and, at the same time, there were no participations from patients' associations in the meetings of the Ethics Council; ● no Procedure for conducting visits was developed, although approximately half of the patients received visits from relatives, the visits being recorded in the FOCG (Institute of Psychiatry Socola - Exterior Section Șipote); ● patients hospitalized in isolation wards in an epidemiological context (people with increased vulnerability, being people with psychiatric disorders) were not involved (for a period of 14 days) in any recreational activity, given that the hospital didn’t allow access in open air; ● in the Săpunari Psychiatric Hospital, identification bracelets were used (applied on the patient's left forearm); not the practice itself was considered by the NPM team to be worrying, but the fact that it wasn’t applied uniformly (black color was not used in all cases) – this allowed patients to be classified into certain categories, visible to all (patients, relatives, staff): patients with aggressive manifestations (green color), patients at risk of falling (red color), patients with disabilities (blue color); the practice was not mandatory, patients 10