VISITS TO SOCIAL CARE INSTITUTIONS accepted the recommendation to place a collection box for complaints on the secure ward since, irrespective of the residents’ ability to complain in writing, it is sensible and necessary to give them the option to complain anonymously. On the other hand, the Home realised the recommendations referring to the preparation of an individual plan, encouraging residents to use toilet facilities, and to keep the door between the secure ward units open. Unrealised recommendations were repeated during this visit, and we understood from the Home’s response that reservations exist relating to the immediate realisation of most recommendations given, and we thus marked as realised only two recommendations (decorating of rooms and going outdoors or staying outdoors in wintertime). The systemic recommendation addressed to the MDDSZ that it actively approach finding solutions so that capacities of secure wards in retirement homes would not be exceeded any more must also be highlighted. Although the Home gave its negative opinion, it still had to accommodate a resident based on a court decision. In its response, the Ministry stressed that retirement homes which decided to have secure wards as per the ZDZdr must accept situations stipulated by the applicable legislation in the sense of possible accommodation of persons based on court decisions and skipping the list of persons waiting for admission. Both can be a great problem and the homes strive for the ZDZdr to be amended accordingly, particularly regarding the content where suitable solutions are also being sought intensively within the framework of the Ministry. We recommended to the MDDSZ to ensure that representatives of persons with mental disorders are introduced accordingly to the residents and the staff, and if necessary, also to the residents’ relatives or guardians. On 1 February 2018, the NPM visited Koper Retirement Home. This was a regular visit to the Home where a psychiatric expert was present. We gave 12 recommendations and highlighted several examples of good practice. One of these was the expert’s finding that he was unable to determine that residents who receive several psychotropic medications were excessively sedated or that psychopharmacotherapy was used instead of special protection measures in order to restrict residents of the secure ward. We also commended the fact that the Home was encouraging visiting since that contributed to the maintenance of a resident’s social network. As an example of good practice, we noted the panels permanently installed under the ceiling which are easy to install and enable a screen when a resident needs more privacy (e.g. during care) in a room with several beds. From the Home’s response to the preliminary report, it was evident that some recommendations had already been implemented, including recommendations about suitable protection against adverse weather conditions for a resident who smokes in front of the secure ward, timely delivery of food to the secure ward, and a sufficient number of staff to help with feeding. The Home also observed recommendations regarding prescribing medications on a needs basis, suitable amendments to forms for special protection measures with the provision of measures implemented before introducing special protection measures, and the acquisition of consent from a resident being relocated from a room where another resident is dying. Recommendations accepted by the Home, but not yet realised, are recommendations referring to decorating of rooms, suitable legal basis for accommodation on a secure ward, the observance of deadlines for submitting proposals to courts and the proposal for detention extension. We particularly mention the systemic recommendation given to the MDDSZ. The NPM recommended to the MDDSZ to ensure that representatives are introduced accordingly to the residents of retirement homes with mental disorders and also to their relatives or guardians. The representatives should be equipped with brochures and posters so that information about them is available to the residents and their relatives at all times. On 13 February 2018, we made a control visit to the dislocated unit for dementia patients of Metlika Retirement Home, where we especially examined the observance of recommendations given during the visit in 2015. We determined that the majority of the twelve recommendations had been accepted and also realised, which was positive. We can mention recommendations relating to sufficient lighting of corridors, correct prescription of occasional medications, suitable adjustment of forms completed when using special protection measures, ongoing and frequent checking of received complaints, commendations or proposals. During the visit, we found that the Home would have to invest additional efforts to implement recommendations referring to decorating the ward in a way more homely to the residents and to suitably publish activities taking place for residents. We were particularly surprised at the non-acceptance of the recommendation about the adoption of suitable legal basis for accommodating residents on the secure ward. In its response to the preliminary report, the management of the Home explained that all doors at the dislocated unit are open, and residents have unlimited access to the garden and the surrounding area of the Home. A three-point lock system is on the iron gate (fence surrounding the unit), which is next to a very busy main road with no pavement. With regard to the institution’s responsibility for safety of its residents and the assessment of increased traffic risk, the management believed that a three-point lock system was a compromise solution as per the fact that it was not a restricted or secure ward. The NPM acknowledged the explanation, but stated that this did not 30 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE NPM IN 2018 NATIONAL PREVENTIVE MECHANISM UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT