general observations in connection with inspections 38 were forced to carry the patients to another floor and through common areas, if the need to strap someone down arose. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen holds that this kind of procedure is problematic in several respects. It is, e.g., unclear whether any assessment is done of the risks that such measures pose, in the individual case, and whether there is still a need for strapping down a patient, once the patient has been taken to the area in question. In addition to this, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen states that the patient is exposed to an offence when being carried through common areas. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen questioned this method and urged the clinic to take action as soon as possible to ensure that the use of force, deemed necessary, can be exercised in such a way as to not jeopardise a patients’ integrity and safety.52 At some clinics, so-called limitations apply, which, in brief, can mean that a patient voluntarily comes to an agreement with the staff to, for example, stay in his or her room. This is not a question of isolation, which is a coercive measure. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen states that the word limitation should not be used since it could be confused with the coercive measure of isolation. In order for the procedure of agreements on limitations to be acceptable, this must, in the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, be voluntary and kept strictly separate from coercive measures. It is of great importance that it is entirely clear to both patients and staff and that the documentation is clear.53 According to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen, there is a need to review the peremptory law, to clarify which coercive measures may be used to perform compulsory psychiatric care. As regards to compulsory medication, it emerged that one clinic had procedures that meant that a patient kept securely could be given “an opportunity to voluntarily accept the injection”. If the patient refuses this, the injection is given by force. The nurse informed the patient that the injection had been prescribed by a doctor. One employee also stated that a patient could be strapped to a bed for preventive purposes prior to a compulsory injection and that the patient was then often led to the isolation room. As a result of these reports, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen emphasised the need for a review of the compulsory care legislation. This is to clarify what compulsory measures a senior physician should decide on, which coercive measures are required and that the supervisory authority should be informed of the decision.54 Following a later inspection, the Parliamentary Ombudsmen has decided that there are grounds for monitoring this issue.55 Finally, in several cases, it has been established, that clinics are applying provisions that make it possible to search patients at a general entrance area. Such a check may only take place in inpatient-care establishments with an elevated security classification and pursuant to a separate decision. In other 52 Ref. no. 2945-2017. 53 Ref. nos. 1350-2015 and 2222-2016. 54 Ref. no. 2222-2016. 55 Ref. no. 3416-2017.