Report on the Performance of the Activities of the National Preventive Mechanism for 2019 a limitation on the freedom of movement that has no legal basis. The majority of residents were not in possession of their ID cards, which were held by their relatives; instead, only copies of ID cards were kept at the Home, which is another mode of limiting freedom of movement, as we had already pointed out in earlier reports. Like others, this Home has not set up a formal residents' complaints procedure in line with the Social Welfare Act (SWA) and the Ordinance on Minimum Conditions for the Provision of Social Services, neither does it keep a special record of complaints, actions taken and how the complaints are resolved, something that is absolutely necessary. Complaints are mostly made orally, resolved informally and on the spot, and residents are generally informed of the results only orally. Therefore, the currently existing internal statutes need to be Evacuation drills for emergency harmonised with the SWA and the Ordinance on the situations should be regularly standards of quality of social services. Furthermore, conducted in all Homes for the permanent or temporary residence at the address of elderly, with a special emphasis on the Home is not registered for its users, although the units housing residents with impaired Residence Act mandates Homes to register at the mobility, immobile residents and local police station as resident every person to whom those suffering from dementia. they provide accommodation services for longer than three months; residency is registered. The shortcomings we pointed out during this visit are broadly the same as those we encountered in previous visits to elderly care homes. Although this Home provides accommodation services for persons suffering from Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia, it does not have a special accommodation unit set up for them in line with the Ordinance on the minimum conditions for provision of social services, but houses such residents together with residents not in need of special care, which is unacceptable. Staff shortage is being compensated with their extra work and efforts, the premises are extremely clean and tidy, but the understaffing nevertheless affects the quality of service. For instance, less mobile residents are only helped out of their beds by the physiotherapist or their relatives, which is not enough. As the tendency is to designate as much available space as possible for dormitories, there is a visible lack of workspace for employees. For instance, the social worker performs her work, interviewing residents and their families, in a corridor, without adequate privacy, which is unacceptable. Restrictive actions, for instance using magnetic straps or lifting the bed rails, are not documented in residents' individual plans, the reasons for their use are not cited, and it is unclear whether a doctor or someone else determined that such actions should be taken, and the necessary records of their use are not kept. Physically limiting movement (immobilising) by using magnetic straps is considered a coercive measure, whose use Act on Protection of Persons with Mental Disorders (APPMD) allows in social welfare centres as well, for persons with serious mental disorders, and in the same manner and under the same conditions as applied in psychiatric institutions. Therefore, if care homes apply such measures, the decision has to be taken by a psychiatrist, and they have to be carried out in the same way they are carried out in psychiatric units, that is, hospitals. 23