NORWEGIAN PARLIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN National Preventive Mechanism ANNUAL REPORT 2019 72 Bergen Prison 2–4 May 2018 Bergen Prison Some of the recommendations were addressed immediately, such as the hospital developing technical solutions to collect data on decisions on the use of coercive measures in the different sections. A system has also been developed to document whether a patient has received a debrief conversation after being subjected to coercion. The hospital has also made certain changes to the physical conditions in the section, such as painting the segregation units to reduce their sterile feel. The restraint straps, which hung visibly from the patient beds in the segregation units, have also been removed. The house rules in all the sections have been revised, and wording that were in violation of the legislation were immediately removed after the visits. During the visit at the security section, it emerged that the house rules in one of the ­sections restricted the use of mobile phones in excess of that provided for in the Mental Health Care Act. The visit to Bergen Prison was part of the follow-up of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report after its previous visit in 2014. The main purpose of the visit in 2018 was to investigate the prison's practices in connection with exclusion from common areas and time spent outside the cells. Bergen Prison is Norway’s second largest prison and has an ordinary capacity of 265 places, divided between 209 high security places and 56 lower security places. The NPM’s visit did not include the prison’s lower security section. The recommendations made after the visit appeared to have been thoroughly followed up. Changes, such as rehabilitation of the security cells, including new dimmable lights, a calling system, digital clock and new paint colours, had been implemented. After the visit, the Parliamentary Ombudsman made several recommendations regarding the use of security cells and restraint beds. The ­Ombudsman recommended that the prison immediately ensured that administrative decisions regarding the use of security cells were made in accordance with the requirements set out in current laws and guidelines. The prison reviewed the decisions that were inadequate after the visit. They were discussed at management meetings and used in the training of staff. The staff also underwent training and supervision in relation to supervision procedures and record-keeping. Bergen Prison changed its procedures to ensure they are in accordance with the recommendation that inmates mainly should be able to use their own clothes in the security cells. The prison’s internal guidelines for the use of restraint beds were also changed. During the visit, weaknesses were identified in the procedures and practices relating to using restraint beds and security cells