Visits, Follow-ups and Results in 2020 We found coercion protocols where it was not substantiated that the conditions necessary for the application of physical coercion were present. The protocols also lacked documentation as to why co­ ercion was considered necessary. Some protocols contained inadequate information to document why staff had intervened in a specific situation. In some of these cases, the actions of the staff appeared instead to have escalated the situation. Olivia Solhaugen did not have specific procedures for preventing unnecessary use of coercion. How­ ever, it was clear from other routines that the insti­ tution did work actively to prevent coercion. In the sections we visited, it was evident that staff spoke to the adolescents about how they could seek help if they experienced difficulties, circumstances that could make them unhappy, stressed or angry, and what could be done to assist in these situations. Such information is important to avoid unnecessary use of coercion. However, this information was not systematised and easily accessible to all staff. The Ombudsman’s impression of the institu­ tion’s cooperation with other agencies, such as healthcare services, police, and school, was good. Cooperation appeared to be characterised by dialogue and systematic work. There were never­ theless some exceptions. Some adolescents had not been offered a satisfactory school programme. We also heard about situations where adolescents had not been positively received and treated at the emergency clinic. 41 caring framework for treatment of vulnerable children and adolescents. The institutional culture was characterised by a high degree of openness, respect and care. The way the children was cared for stood out as an example to be followed by other providers of mental healthcare. The ward had decided not to be authorised for enforced admissions. This had had several positive implications for how the children and adolescents were safeguarded. The ward had made great effort to avoid a strict environment characterized primar­ ily by security concerns, sterile surroundings and locked doors. The premises were well maintained with appealing colours, pleasant furnishings and a homely atmosphere. Several of the adolescents stated that they never thought that a mental health ward could be so welcoming. It became evident that it was a conscious decision by management to improve well-being with pleasant surroundings. The exit doors were not locked. Major emphasis was placed on creating an environment in which the children would wish to accept treatment. Activities organised by the ward were good and varied. The ward organised regular activities such as gym sessions and various Levanger Hospital, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry The Ombudsman’s NPM visited the child and adolescent psychiatry ward (BUP) at Levanger ­Hospital, in February 2020. The most important finding was that the ward provided a safe and The child and adolescent psychiatry ward, Levanger Hospital.