61 Visits in 2019 In 2019, the Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism carried out several visits to child welfare institutions and mental healthcare institutions. All but one visit was carried out in the autumn 2019. We have also followed up six visits that were carried out during 2018. The Child Welfare Service Buskerud and Vestfold Emergency Youth Centre, Barkåker 20–21 May 2019 Barkåker is a state-owned emergency institution. The institution has eight places and receives adolescents from the age of 13 to 18 years. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited Barkåker on 20–21 May 2019. The adolescents felt that they were well received when they arrived at the institution, and the institution worked hard to make the adolescents feel included both individually and as a group. The adolescents explained that they were ­respected, treated well, and that they could speak out if they disagreed with something. Barkåker had made many administrative decisions on the use of force in situations of acute danger both in the present and in previous years. A high number of these decisions concerned a small number of adolescents. Several days could pass, sometimes weeks, from the coercive measure was implemented until the staff reviewed the administrative decision on the use of coercion measure with the adolescent ­concerned. Many of the administrative decisions were not reviewed with the adolescents, most often because the adolescents did not want to. It was therefore difficult to gain a good ­understanding of their view and experience of the use of coercion. The unit did not have procedures for documenting that continuous assessments were made of whether to uphold or set aside an administrative decision on restricted freedom of movement. Some decisions on restricted freedom of movement concerned restrictions both in and outside the institution. This was usually about an adolescent staying in a separate apartment in the unit, separated from the other residents. There is a risk of adolescents in practice being isolated over a prolonged period from their peers and others who are not staff at the institution. Staff and management were aware of how intrusive body searches are, and the threshold for conducting a body search appeared to be high. The NPM nonetheless found an example of a body search that did not safeguard the person’s need for safety and dignity and did not follow a trauma-sensitive approach. The exterior doors of the institution were locked, and residents who wished to leave or enter the institution had to contact a member of staff to unlock the doors. Locked doors during the day are legally problematic, especially when it concerns adolescents who are not placed at the institution against their will. Findings indicated that residents who so requested were indeed let out, however, it seemed that the locked doors added tension to situations of conflict occurring between residents and staff.