CHANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS THE PREVENTIVE MECHANISM should be made available on the information boards of the hospital and given to each service recipient and, where applicable, to their representative, in a language understood by them. If necessary, the service provider should additionally explain the content of the document. Chairman of the Board of Viljandi Hospital Foundation informed the Chancellor that a new procedure for complaints and information on possibilities of recourse to external complaint mechanisms outside the institution has been posted on the information board of the department, and a locked box for submitting proposals and complaints has been placed in the corridor of the department. The inspection revealed that in addition to the full text of internal rules of the department, a simplified version of the rules had been made available for service recipients on the information boards in the department. When a person entitled to receive the service arrives in the institution, they are given the text with internal rules or a simplified version of the rules of the department depending on their ability to understand written documents. The information on the internal rules drawn up by the department is presented in simple and clear language to ensure understanding of the information by service recipients. The Chancellor found that the information material prepared by the department is a positive example of how internal rules can be clearly explained to service recipients by taking into account their age and level of development. The Chancellor believes that all the social welfare institutions should follow a similar practice. 3. Võisiku Care Home (AS Hoolekandeteenused) On 8 June 2010, advisers to the Chancellor of Justice carried out an inspection visit to Võisiku Care Home (hereinafter the care home). The care home is within the area of administration of AS Hoolekandeteenused. The sole shareholder of AS Hoolekandeteenused is the Ministry of Social Affairs. At the time of the visit, the care home provided the daily life assistance service to 38 persons, employment support service to 20 persons, assisted living service to 50 persons, 24-hour special care service to 283 persons, 24-hour special care service to 40 persons placed in the institution upon a court ruling, and 24-hour special care service to 30 persons with a profound multiple disability. The care home had 144 staff, and the administrative units servicing the care home had 24 staff. In addition to the problem with proper keeping of a register for recording incidents of seclusion described above, the inspection revealed that upon seclusion of service recipients the care home had not notified the provider of emergency medical care (i.e. the ambulance service) or the police about the incident. Under § 202(5) of the Social Welfare Act, before seclusion the provider of 24-hour special care service must notify the provider of emergency medical care or the police. Under subsection 6 of the same section, a person may be isolated from other service recipients until the arrival of the provider of emergency medical care or the police, but not for longer than three consecutive hours.30 The Chancellor recommended to the head of the care home that in the future the ambulance or the police should always be notified in case of seclusion of service recipients. The Chairman of the Board of AS Hoolekandeteenused informed the Chancellor that the staff of the care home had been informed about this obligation and follow-up verification of compliance with the requirement would be performed by the head of the care home. The inspection also revealed that at night the care home had a guard who was also assisting the staff with the application of seclusion measures if necessary. At the same time, guards have not received special 60 30 The explanatory note to the Act on the Amendment of the Social Welfare Act, the Social Benefits for Disabled Persons Act and the relating Acts, the following has been noted with regard to § 202(5) of the Social Welfare Act: “As seclusion should only be used in cases when a person is dangerous and/or in a psychosis, it is always necessary to call the police or the ambulance. If a person is dangerous to themselves or others, apparently the intervention of the police or the ambulance crew is always necessary and the person should be taken either to the police or a psychiatric hospital where they would be provided, if necessary, psychiatric care in accordance with the procedure under the Mental Health Act.”