Institutions for persons with disabilities in some institutions are barely informed about activities, events or news in their surroundings. This problem was exacerbated during the pandemic. At the same time, there were quite a few positive examples of institutions and facilities that dealt with this topic very well. In one facility, the residents received daily “Corona News” in simple language. In other institutions, hygiene measures in the form of pictures were displayed in the hallways. Training sessions on how to wear a mask properly and on other protective measures were held. Numbering systems for washing hands or traffic light regulations with behavioural rules were observed by the commissions. Examples of good practice The opportunities to meet up with people outside the institutions during the lockdown were very limited or in some cases completely ruled out. Commissions reported that many cared for persons were not able to meet their families for three months. Other social contacts that are possible in everyday situations such as when shopping, visiting a bar or events were sorely missed by those affected too. Many institutions tried to use electronic media to enable contact with families and friends as much as possible. This worked very well in some cases, in others less so. Loss of social contacts The additional activities also required staff resources, however. In some cases, the staff in residential institutions were supported by colleagues from the closed day-care centres. In other cases, fewer clients had to be taken care of than usual because some spent the lockdown with their families. This even facilitated improved, more individualised care. More staff to guarantee better protection of fundamental rights But there was not always sufficient staff available. The residential facilities were often supported by staff from the closed day-care centres. But this was not the case everywhere. In addition, there were staff shortages when employees were in a risk group and could not work. In one residential facility for example, all twelve elderly residents were cared for by a single caregiver from 8.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. The commission emphasised that this precarious staffing resulted in an unacceptable strain on both the care staff and the cared for persons. They need adequate relationships and activity programmes to compensate for the absence of external contacts. Furthermore, they often need more support in coping with everyday situations because of their age. These requirements cannot be fulfilled with one person working alone. The operator of the facility argued that they had consciously avoided support from day-care centres at the beginning of the pandemic for fear of infecting this particularly vulnerable group of persons. Both knowledge of the pandemic and awareness of the rights and freedom of persons with disabilities have since improved, which is why the operator would act differently in the future. 94