(variously also called ‘stitch gowns’ or ‘anti-rip gowns’ – knee-length smocks made from thick, tear-proof materials), and providing them with finger food only, as was the case in several units; not permitting all women in an At Risk unit to wear a bra; requiring all patients arriving to one mental health unit from court or from prison to be placed in mechanical restraint (body belt/ cuff on side); searching all prisoners returning to their cell, even if just from the Day Room in one women’s prison; strip searching all women who were serving disciplinary punishment (Cellular Confinement) in another, and; not allowing young people to have pencils in the Secure Care room. While some of these may be necessary for a short time, for a specific individual, they must not be applied as a matter of course to everyone. Written records: some duplicates, little electronic recording and variable quality assurance Stays in solitary confinement units across the different detention contexts were not consistently recorded, and where they were recorded, this was sometimes done manually in old fashioned large-format paper registers. Across detaining agencies, some data was recorded several times in different registers. These inconsistencies made reviewing the data for trends, equalities and other issues of potential concern much more difficult and time consuming than necessary. This is partially evidenced also by the length of time it took to provide this review with some of the data requested. Paperwork and case files related to individuals was of variable quality, sometimes even within the same institution, with examples of both excellent, detailed notes and notes, completed in illegible handwriting with signatures missing, across the different detention contexts. Where paper files (rather than electronic one) were kept, they were sometimes disorganised, making it difficult to access pertinent information and share information between shifts. In one mental health unit, for example, the paperwork examined was mostly of reasonable quality with detailed notes, mostly completed by nurses, but some notes were illegible, and there appeared to be some inconsistency in regime and provisions for two patients: one had a detailed management plan and access to various professionals, including an Occupational Therapist and a social worker, whereas the other patient had none . The Seclusion Authorisation Form for another patient listed a whole array of reasons for their seclusion including: requests to be secluded; homicidal; safety of self; and, needs low stimulus, making it difficult to judge the need for seclusion in that particular individual’s case. 48