42 voluntary activities, which the youth could exert some influence on. The ward worked well on providing children and ad­ olescents with information about their rights, daily routines and their ongoing health treatment. The findings indicated that children and adolescents, to a significant degree, were heard and allowed to decide on matters important to them. Children who wished to do so, could give feedback about their experience at the institution. This was good practice for learning about children’s experience of being admitted to hospital. There were inadequate guidelines concerning how maltreatment and abuse can be prevented and how suspicion of such incidents should be followed up. The staff’s experience was that these issues were not spoken about to any great extent, even though the ward had some routines for preventing maltreatment and abuse. No findings were made during the visit that gave rise to any suspicion about such incidents. In exceptional cases, disruptive adolescents were forcibly admitted to an adult ward with locked doors. The clinic was within walking distance of the BUP ward. In the last three years, a total of eighteen adolescents under 18 years old had been ­admitted to the adult ward. Four of these were under 16 years old. A review of these cases indicated that the children had been closely followed up by staff from the child and adolescent psychiatry ward. Most of the admissions were of short duration. Placement of adolescents together with adults in detention settings is problematic. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child demands that children shall be separated from adults, unless the opposite is in the child’s best interests. Children and adolescents who were involuntarily admitted NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2020 to the adult mental health emergency section, were placed in a segregation unit but separated from adult patients. The segregation unit appeared to be new and its design adapted to vulnerable patients. However, several children had had stressful experi­ ences after being admitted to the same section as adult patients. It is also unfortunate that children are prevented from having contact with their peers. The Ombudsman highlighted that the child’s best interest must be assessed individually in each case; however, the opportunity to have contact with their peers is important for all children and adolescents. In exceptional cases where this is not a viable alternative, it should take place only in extraordinary cases and for as short a time as possible. During the years 2017–2019, the child and adolescent psychiatry ward had made no adminis­ trative decisions related to the use of mechanical coercive means, segregation or short-term-effect medications. The ward did not have mechanical coercive means or isolation rooms. There were no administrative decisions regarding segregation even though they had areas that could be used for this. None of the children we spoke to had experienced enforced measures, and there were no administrative decisions concerning coercive measures in 2019. Together, the low coercion incident figures and our findings indicate that the ward is successful in preventing the use of coercion within the ward. A good system for complaints and oversight adapted to children’s needs had been established within the ward. Both the ward and the Control Commission had routines to ensure that children’s potential resistance to admission were quickly identified. This is in accordance with human rights standards. The Controll Commission carried out active oversight of the children and adolescents’ legal safeguards and was characterised by a proactive and child-friendly approach.