general observations in connection with inspections 35 the inmate was informed of the content of the decision and whether the individual has received information regarding how he or she can appeal the decision.41 At one of the LVM residential homes inspected, the personnel stated that the premises used for care in isolation were not fit for purpose. Since such care can continue for a relatively long period, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen encouraged the home to contact SiS’s head office to discuss how the deficiencies could be rectified.42 Following an inspection of an LVU residential home, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen decided to investigate an event where employees at the home had restrained a youth, who was being cared for in isolation at the time, for just under an hour.43 The Parliamentary Ombudsmen has not made a decision on the matter yet. “Escapees” During an inspection of a LVM residential home in 2014, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen noted that personal at the home allowed inmates to leave the home in connection with situations the personnel interpreted as threatening. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen investigated the issue in an enquiry. In its decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen stated that the assumption must be that a person who is subject to compulsory care must be prevented from unlawfully leaving the residential home. The personnel have the authority to use force to restrain an inmate who is trying to leave the residential home unlawfully. Regarding the degree of force, which is justifiable in such a situation, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen held that consideration needed to be taken to the fact that the aim of the care is to motivate the individual to accept care and support measures on a voluntary basis. It does not appear reasonable for the personnel at an LVM residential home to use as much force as the personnel at, for example, a prison establishment, is allowed to, to try to prevent an escape.44 At an inspection at the same LVM residential home in 2017, it emerged that the personnel had again allowed inmates to leave the home in connection to a threatening situation. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen found no reason to investigate the matter but again emphasised that the personnel must ensure that no one unlawfully leaves the residential home.45 Supervision of inmates Following the inspections of the LVU residential homes in autumn 2017, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen stated that the issue of supervision, that person41 Ref. no. 5903-2017. 42 Ref. no. 1762-2017. 43 Ref. nos. 5903-2017 and 6774-2017. 44 JO 2016/17 p. 571, Ref. no. 7163-2014. 45 Ref. no. 1762-2017. The assumption is that the personnel must ensure that no one unlawfully leaves the residential home.