Implementation of Duties and Powers of the National Preventive Mechanism in 2010 The issues related to PVU are also noted in the chapter on persons with mental disorders and persons in social care institutions and in the chapter on health care. In respect of the visits to the institutions, we established that a particular problem in using the PVU is that the doctor is not present for most of the time. Therefore, nursing homes in particular obtain permission to implement a special protection measure through various means. In some cases, the doctor approves the implementation of the measure in advance for a particular occupant “if necessary or at the discretion of the personnel”. In other cases, the doctor only confirms the implemented measure after the event, when he or she is there. This practice in homes is contrary to ZDZdr; therefore, during National Preventive Mechanism visits, we warned of the misconduct and proposed that the practice be harmonised with the law. The fifth paragraph of Article 29, ZDZdr stipulates that a person upon whom a PVU has been implemented shall be supervised, his/her vital functions monitored and he/she be given expert treatment throughout the time the PVU is being implemented. Detailed data on the reason, intention, duration and supervision of implementation of PVU is entered into the person’s medical records, with regard to the implementation of a PVU. Psychiatric hospitals and social care institutions keep records of the implementation of PVUs in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 99 of this Act. Such records in the visited institutions were often inadequate. When visiting one of the nursing homes, we observed that the records (report book) did not indicate the exact time when the measure had been implemented; who had ordered them; how long the measure had been imposed; and what observations were made during its implementation. Therefore, we could not discover whether the home had respected the time limits specified by ZDZdr. We also established that the person subject to restraint was not always placed in an appropriate manner, to which we pointed out. This is especially true for restraint in a multi-bed room where the resident is accommodated. If the supervision by personnel is insufficient, other occupants may be surprised at the restraint of their fellow resident and may even mob or molest him or her. Moreover, frequent regular supervision could be disturbing for other residents, particularly during rest or at night. Constant and, if possible, continuous supervision of PVU implementation is required to provide security and quick and efficient help to the person subject to the measure, if necessary. We suggested to one of the institutions that the procedure for supervising the implementation of the measure (who, how frequent and in what manner) should be defined more precisely. Who supervises the proper conduct of the personnel and keeping of records should also be specified. The nursing homes and special social care institutions visited in 2010 do not have a special room for calming down. Segufix belts are generally used to calm down residents, if necessary. When PVU is used on a restless person, a question is raised as to whether restraint with belts (particularly when the extremities are also restrained) is a more suitable measure compared to placement in a room for calming down. A person subject to restraint cannot move, cannot make a basic movement, and undoubtedly feels degraded when other inmates watch him or her. According to the DPM, accommodation in a special (padded) room for calming down would thus be (at least) in some cases a better solution. Arranging a special room for calming down, which is also classified among special protection measures by ZDZdr (confinement to one room), is undoubtedly associated with the spatial capacity of the institution and sufficient resources. In order to find the most suitable form of PVU, each particular case should be decided upon - by taking into account ZDZdr - by a doctor who also approves such measures. Complaints procedures There are still cases when secure wards in nursing homes do not have a (special) collection box for anonymous complaints by the residents. We insist that such collection boxes be installed in each such ward due to the limited possibilities of the residents leaving the ward and submitting a complaint. The possibility of a resident of a secure ward submitting a written complaint is slight; nevertheless, each resident should have the opportunity to submit a complaint in such a manner. The visited institutions generally considered such warnings of the National Preventive Mechanism (DPM) and installed collection boxes in the 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 63