fundamental and human rights �.� national preventive mechanism against torture performance of their staff and the quality of the services they provide. Staff members have in social welfare a statutory obligation to report any deficiencies in the care provided. Persons voicing concerns may not be subjected to negative consequences of any kind. Visits to care units for older people pay special attention to the use of restrictive measures. The use of such measures is made problematic for the fact that there is still no legislation on imposing restrictive measures on older people with memory disorders. According to the Constitution, however, such measures would have to be based on law. The Ombudsman has issued several opinions in which he has demanded legislation to be passed on the matter. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that, even though there is no legislation on restrictive measures yet, their use should be transparent and consistent with human dignity. The provisions of the Mental Health Act on the use of restrictive measures on individuals in involuntary care should be applied as a minimum requirement. On its visits, the NPM paid attention to matters such as the duration and recording of restrictive measures and deciding on them. All visit reports are published on the website of the Ombudsman. The purpose of the publication is to inform the general public that the operations of a certain unit are being monitored. The reports also provide residents, family members and staff with important information on the observations made during the visit. It may also be requested that the visit report be made available to the public on the noticeboard of the unit for a period of three months. The aim is for residents, family members and other stakeholders to report any shortcomings that have been overlooked to the supervisory authorities. All visits made to care units for the elderly in 2018 were made under the NPM mandate. Eleven such visits were made in 2018, one of them to a unit operated by a private service provider. All of the visits were made unannounced. One visit was a follow-up visit conducted in the evening. The sites visited were: – intensive service unit Portsakoti, Turku, 26 January 2018, 23 places (383/2018) – group home Elsekoti, Turku, 26 January 2018, 12 places (384/2018) – intensive service unit Taasiakoti, Loviisa, 8 February 2018, 36 places in total (657/2018) – intensive service unit Emil-koti, Loviisa, 8 February 2018, 9 places (659/2018) – Näsmäkieppi serviced housing, Rovaniemi, 21 March 2018, 35 places in total (1212/2018) – Lohja service centre for the elderly/Alatupa, Lohja, 25 April 2018, 11 places (2114/2018) – Lohja service centre for the elderly/Kultakoti, Lohja, 25 April 2018, 9 places (2217/2018) – Lohja service centre for the elderly/Kultakartano, Lohja, 25 April 2018, 18 places (2218/2018) – Follow-up visit to Lohja service centre for the elderly, 18 June 2018 (3082/2018) – intensive service unit Riihikoto/Tammikoto, Tuusula, 28 June 2018, 24 places (3290/2018) – Attendo Linnanharju nursing home, Helsinki, 4 July 2018, 61 places (3367/2018) Restrictive measures used in units for older people It is an established practice in the legality oversight of service units for the elderly that the use of any kind of restrictive measures on residents requires the decision of a physician. The physician should also monitor that the restrictive measures are not used to a greater extent or time than necessary. The use of restrictive measures must be stopped immediately when they are no longer necessary. These measures should be discussed with the resident’s next of kin or family members before their adoption. The necessity of such a measure must also be explained to them. The decision-making on the use of restrictive measures and their duration may be jeopardised if the physician does not visit the unit often or meet the residents during such visits. A care plan drawn up in an assisted living unit with intensified support specified that the movement of the resident was restricted. According to the entries, this had been authorised by the resident, who suffered from a memory disorder, and the resident’s next of kin. The entries did not 103