In early 2015, all institutions were meeting the Argus data set requirement, while the amount of identification plans available and in use was on the increase. The secluded patient had more contact moments than used to be customary in all institutions. Restriction of freedom in the care for the elderly and the disabled It is a well-known fact that restricting the freedom of the elderly and people suffering a mental disability significantly impacts the quality of their life. Reducing the incidence of forced restriction of freedom in the care for the elderly and the disabled is an area of primary concern to the IGZ. In recent years, the IGZ has intensively monitored the reduction of the use of freedom-restricting measures. The IGZ in 2013 and 2014 extensively investigated the process of deciding on and implementing freedom-restricting measures. As part of its investigation into the care for the elderly and the disabled, the IGZ reviewed a large number of individual cases of compulsory treatment7 and developed an instrument to assess whether the freedom-restricting measures meet current standards. On the basis of its investigation, the IGZ finds that many care institutions, by implementing targeted policies and with external help, have managed to abolish freedom-restricting measures, even for exceptional situations. This is due to an improved organization with respect to: • making decisions on and assessing the topic of compulsory treatment in a multidisciplinary context; • considering alternatives for freedom-restricting measures like restraining or seclusion; • making use of an identification plan or treatment recommendations in case of behaviour escalation; • informing the client and/or representative about the reason(s) of the compulsory treatment in considering the measure. The IGZ has also found a number of items for improvement as concerns the restriction of freedom in long-term care: • engagement of experts in complex cases; • not locking up patients in their own room; • decrease the use of bed restraints; • unified registration of freedom-restricting measures; • administer fewer psychoactive drugs; • opinion of the client and/or their representative on the implementation of the compulsory treatment. 7 Psychiatric Hospitals (Compulsory Admissions) Act, Section 38. 11