Digital Evidence Packs for Technology Scoring in Adult Social Care Tenders
Technology-related questions in adult social care tenders are rarely asking whether you have a system. They are asking whether you can evidence safe, governed, day-to-day use that improves delivery and reduces risk. A practical way to respond is to build a “digital evidence pack” that can be reused across bids and continually updated. This article sets out what to include and how to make it scoreable, drawing on the wider theme of technology in tenders and the strongest forms of evidence typically generated through digital care planning.
What a digital evidence pack is (and why it scores)
A digital evidence pack is a structured set of artefacts that show:
- Operational adoption (who uses the system, when, and for what tasks)
- Governance and assurance (audit trails, permissions, oversight routines, exception management)
- Impact (how risks reduce, outcomes improve, and delivery becomes more reliable)
It should be built so that an evaluator can quickly see: (1) what the tool does in your service model, (2) how you control quality and safety, and (3) how you evidence performance without manual “storytelling”.
How to structure the pack to match typical tender criteria
Most procurement questions can be mapped to five headings that appear repeatedly in evaluation frameworks:
- Capability: systems and functionality relevant to adult social care delivery
- Implementation: rollout approach, training, adoption controls, continuity planning
- Information governance: access control, data quality, incident response, retention
- Quality and safeguarding: risk identification, escalation routes, oversight routines
- Outcomes and reporting: what you measure, how you assure accuracy, how you improve
A strong pack contains short artefacts under each heading (screen captures, workflow diagrams, sample reports, audit extracts) with one paragraph per artefact explaining: what it shows, how it is used in day-to-day delivery, and how it is governed.
Operational example 1: Homecare medication and MAR exception management
Context: A domiciliary care service supports people with complex medicines, where missed doses and recording errors are high-risk and quickly become safeguarding concerns.
Support approach: The provider uses an electronic MAR (eMAR) integrated into the care worker workflow. Care workers record administration in real time; the system flags missed or late medication, prompts escalation steps, and records the reason codes (e.g., refused, not available, hospital admission).
Day-to-day delivery detail: Supervisors run a daily exception report at set times (for example, midday and end-of-day). Exceptions are triaged: urgent issues (missed critical meds) are escalated immediately to the on-call manager; non-urgent issues are assigned to the relevant coordinator for follow-up with pharmacy, GP, or family. The evidence pack includes a sample exception report, the escalation workflow, and a redacted log of actions taken.
How effectiveness is evidenced: The pack shows trend lines for missed-dose exceptions, time-to-resolution, and a sample audit that demonstrates that every exception has an action and outcome recorded. It also shows how learning is fed into workforce practice (micro-learning updates or targeted competency refreshers for repeat error patterns).
Operational example 2: Supported living daily notes, risk flags, and restrictive practice oversight
Context: A supported living provider supports people with learning disabilities and autism, where risks include behavioural escalation, environmental triggers, and use of restrictions that must be lawful, proportionate, and reviewed.
Support approach: Digital daily notes and incident recording are configured to capture “risk flags” (antecedents, triggers, protective factors) and to prompt staff to record de-escalation strategies used. Where restrictive interventions occur, the system routes the event to a structured review pathway.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Team leaders review flagged entries during each shift handover and record actions (environmental adjustments, proactive schedules, clinical input requests). A weekly governance huddle reviews restrictive practice events, checks authorisation/consent status (including relevant legal frameworks where applicable), and confirms that the person’s plan has been updated with learning. The evidence pack includes a restrictive practice review template, a sample weekly dashboard, and an audit extract showing review completion rates.
How effectiveness is evidenced: The pack evidences a reduction in repeat triggers over time, improved completeness of ABC-style incident fields, and documented plan updates following review. It also shows how “near misses” are captured so governance is not limited to serious incidents only.
Operational example 3: Hospital discharge / reablement task tracking and missed-visit prevention
Context: Discharge-to-assess and reablement pathways are time-sensitive. Missed visits, unclear task ownership, or delayed escalation can lead to rapid deterioration, complaints, and system pressure.
Support approach: Digital scheduling and tasking tools allocate time-critical actions (welfare check within X hours, medication collection, equipment confirmation). The system enforces confirmation steps and records contact attempts.
Day-to-day delivery detail: A duty function monitors a real-time “at risk” list: visits not accepted by a care worker, tasks overdue, or contact attempts exceeding an agreed threshold. Escalation is embedded: if a visit is at risk, the duty person reallocates resources or triggers a partner escalation (e.g., discharge hub, brokerage, family). The evidence pack includes the overdue-task dashboard and a short “what we do when…” playbook that mirrors the digital workflow.
How effectiveness is evidenced: The pack shows improved on-time visit completion and reduced complaints related to missed calls. It also evidences how exceptions are recorded and reviewed so commissioners can see you are controlling risk rather than relying on heroics.
Commissioner expectation (explicit)
Commissioner expectation: Digital claims must be evidenced through measurable controls and reliable reporting. In practice, commissioners want to see that your systems can produce consistent management information (MI) that supports contract monitoring (activity, timeliness, quality indicators, incidents, complaints, safeguarding, workforce capacity) and that you have a routine for reviewing it, acting on it, and evidencing improvement. Your evidence pack should therefore include: (1) sample contract MI dashboards, (2) reporting frequency, (3) how data quality is assured, and (4) how issues are escalated and closed.
Regulator / Inspector expectation (explicit)
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): Records must be accurate, contemporaneous, and support safe care. Inspectors typically test whether staff can access the right information at the point of care, whether risks are identified and updated, whether medicines and incidents are recorded appropriately, and whether governance systems detect and respond to problems. A digital evidence pack should therefore demonstrate not only what the system can do, but how you assure: record quality, access control, oversight, and learning from incidents and complaints.
What to include (minimum viable pack)
If you want a simple starting point that still scores, build a pack with:
- 1-page architecture overview: key systems and what each is used for
- Role-based access snapshot: who can see/change what, and how changes are audited
- Three core workflows: eMAR exceptions, incident/safeguarding escalation, care plan update cycle
- Two dashboards: operational (today/this week) and governance (monthly/quarterly)
- Data quality controls: checks, audits, and how inaccuracies are corrected
- Continuity arrangements: downtime process, contingency recording, and reconciliation
Keep artefacts short and evaluator-friendly. Your narrative should explicitly link each artefact to: risk control, quality assurance, and measurable impact.
How to keep it “live” rather than a one-off bid attachment
The highest-scoring providers treat digital evidence as a governed asset. They update it quarterly (or alongside contract review cycles), keep a version log, and ensure the evidence pack matches current service practice. This matters because evaluators will often test credibility through follow-up questions: if your evidence is old, inconsistent, or not reflected in operational routines, scores drop quickly.
Done well, a digital evidence pack turns “technology” from a generic claim into a repeatable, governed proof set that can be adapted for different lots, service models, and commissioner priorities without re-writing from scratch.