Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2010 In both hospitals, we thus established that the method of keeping data on notification did not provide an integral overview of the observation of the statutory time limits defined in hours by ZDZdr. Therefore, we proposed that they adhere strictly to the statutory time limits specified for the notification of the hospital manager, the next of kin, the legal representative, and the representative on admission without consent, and for the notification of the court, which is arranged by the manager. We also suggested that the records and documents on admissions without consent be kept with consistency and due care, as they constitute evidence on the legality of the action. We also found that the court competent for the area of the receiving psychiatric hospital promptly responded to the notifications on admissions without consent. During the visit, we were warned of frequent disagreements between the consulting psychiatrist and the court’s decision regarding the urgency, admissibility and duration of detention of persons against their will in the secure ward, and of the fact that the court only rarely heard the consulting psychiatrist and preferred to consider the external expert’s opinion. In the case of one secure ward in one hospital, we found that the patient’s medical record did not include the court’s decision on detaining the person in the secure ward and contained only a copy of the court’s decision instituting a procedure. According to the explanations by the ward, the court does not send decisions on the detention of persons in the secure ward to the hospital. However, we received another explanation at the other secure ward of the same hospital, and when accessing the randomly chosen medical records, we were able to locate the court’s decisions on detention. We pointed out that according to Article 66 of ZDZdr, the court must submit decisions on detention (Article 65 of ZDZdr) to the hospital, which has the right to appeal against such decisions, and so the above-mentioned practice violates this right. If the hospital is not informed of the final decision, a patient could be detained in a secure ward without a legal basis. We therefore proposed that in cases when the hospital has the only court’s decision instituting a procedure and not the final decision of the court, the hospital should warn the president of the court thereof and demand that the court submit a final decision. Special protection measures (PVU) The hospitals maintain records of the order, execution, duration and termination of PVUs in each secure ward, and also maintain a central record. A review of some randomly chosen cases showed certain irregularities or inconsistencies in the maintenance of records on PVU, which prompted us to suggest to the hospitals that they provide consistent completion of data required for keeping records on PVU in accordance with the fifth paragraph of Article 29 of ZDZdr. In the case of one hospital, access to the record of restraints in one of the secure wards showed that fixation in two cases had lasted considerably longer than permitted by ZDZdr. We pointed out that in such cases, doctors should be particularly careful in writing down the patient’s condition, and reasons for PVU prolongation, and should append their signature. The DPM finds that ZDZdr prescribed a number of procedures and records, but failed to provide an adequate and transparent method of monitoring the data. Although the psychiatric hospitals were preparing together for ZDZdr implementation, they use different forms. With the multitude of forms, it stands out that each of them requires the manual entry of identification data, that submission of the completed forms to all addressees has to be provided, and that they should be archived in a way that enables review. Completing the forms takes up the staff’s time, which prior to the implementation of ZDZdr was used for patient interviews. The DPM recommends that the Ministry of Health commission software to enable faster, more consistent and more efficient monitoring of ZDZdr implementation. National Preventive Mechanism in the Republic of Slovenia under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 53