Prisoners still waiting for soft shackles despite longstanding concerns, SA ombudsman finds

South Australia's Department for Correctional Services still has not delivered soft shackles for prisoners, despite numerous complaints that prisoners are being shackled inhumanely in hospitals.

The department has drawn criticism from state ombudsman Wayne Lines who, in his annual report, said he first recommended the use of soft shackles in 2012.

Mr Lines has investigated multiple complaints about the use of shackles on prisoners in the past 12 months.

In one case, a woman was mistakenly taken into custody while in the Flinders Medical Centre, where she was shackled for more than eight hours.

In his report, the ombudsman made a number of recommendations, including that the department should review its processes and apologise to the patient.

In another case, a man was shackled at the Royal Adelaide Hospital for six days while waiting for a bed in the forensic mental health facility James Nash House.

The ombudsman found the man had inadequate access to showers and toilets in that time.

In his report, Mr Lines said it had been two years since the department began liaising with New South Wales Correctional Services to develop and trial a soft shackle prototype.

"I am concerned that this work has not yet delivered the promised secure soft restraint even though it has been ongoing for more than two years," Mr Lines said.

"I note that this office first recommended that a soft restraint be developed in 2012 and it is disappointing that the work on it has not produced a result yet."

Laws designed to improve the sharing of information between government agencies also came in for criticism in the ombudsman's annual report, with Mr Lines saying it undermined the independence of his office.

The laws were brought in as a response to the Nyland Royal Commission, which found information sharing needed to improve to ensure children's safety and wellbeing.

But Mr Lines observes other agencies, such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption, are exempt.

He said the law means a minister may compel him to share information.

"Independence is the very foundation of a parliamentary ombudsman and indeed of the Ombudsman Act," Mr Lines said.

"Put simply, a minister should not have the power to direct a parliamentary ombudsman to do anything."

Mr Lines said he would continue to lobby for an amendment to exempt his office from the laws.