Technology as Scored Evidence in Adult Social Care Tenders

February 9, 2026

Technology is increasingly evaluated as scored evidence in adult social care tenders, not as background context. Commissioners want confidence that digital tools are embedded in day-to-day delivery, improve outcomes and efficiency, and are governed safely. The difference between a high-scoring bid and a weak one is usually how well the provider evidences operational use, assurance and oversight, not how modern the tools sound. This article focuses on how to present technology as credible, auditable evidence in submissions, including what to measure, what to show, and how to link digital practice to commissioning priorities and CQC expectations.

For related tender-focused resources, see Technology in Tenders and Digital Care Planning.

What “technology as scored evidence” usually means in evaluation

In many UK tenders, technology appears within scored questions under headings such as quality, mobilisation, workforce capability, risk management, outcomes, data/reporting and value for money. The assessor is typically looking for three things:

Operational reality: the system is used by staff and managers, not “available”.
Governance and control: risks (data, access, clinical escalation, missed visits, restrictive practice, medication) are managed with clear oversight.
Measurable impact: evidence that the technology contributes to better outcomes, safer practice, improved timeliness, or reduced avoidable cost.

Evidence hierarchy: what scores, what doesn’t

Digital claims score best when they are specific and evidenced. A practical hierarchy that tender teams can use when drafting is:

Best: quantified impact (before/after), KPI trends, audit outcomes, incident learning, examples of management action taken based on data.
Strong: defined workflows (what staff do, when, and what happens if they don’t), training/competency controls, access roles, escalation pathways.
Weak: lists of tools, vendor features copied into the response, or broad statements like “we use digital solutions to improve quality”.

Operational Example 1: Using eMAR and audits to evidence safer medicines management

Context: In supported living, homecare and community mental health support, medicines errors and missed prompts are a common commissioning risk concern. Digital medicines systems (eMAR or structured medicines workflows within care platforms) can be strong evidence if described properly.

Support approach: The provider implements a structured medicines workflow that includes: MAR prompts at defined times, double-check prompts for high-risk medicines, PRN protocols accessible in the care record, and mandatory recording of reasons for omissions.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff log in at the point of care, record administration (or omission) in real time, and use embedded prompts to confirm dose, route, and time. Where a dose is not given, the system forces a reason code and an action note (for example, “service user refused”, “not in stock”, “withheld per protocol”). A daily management dashboard flags omissions and late administrations, enabling the shift lead to follow up the same day. Weekly medicines spot checks sample digital records, and monthly audits track omission reasons and patterns (by service, staff cohort, and time of day).

How effectiveness/change is evidenced: Evidence is shown through: a reduction in late administrations, a reduction in undocumented omissions, a log of management actions taken (coaching, retraining, pharmacy liaison), and audit compliance rates. Where incidents occur, the digital record provides a clear timeline for learning and corrective action.

Operational Example 2: Digital visit verification and escalation to reduce missed or late support

Context: In domiciliary care and community support, missed or late calls drive safeguarding risk, complaints and contract performance escalation. Technology is often explicitly scored here as assurance and reliability evidence.

Support approach: The provider uses electronic call monitoring (ECM) or visit verification integrated with scheduling and rota management. The aim is to prevent missed visits and strengthen real-time escalation.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Carers “start” and “end” visits via the approved method (app, device, or agreed verification process). The system monitors planned vs actual start times and visit duration. If a carer is running late beyond a defined tolerance, the system triggers an alert to the coordinator. The coordinator contacts the carer, reassigns if required, and (for high-risk individuals) triggers a welfare check protocol. Where the person has key risks (falls, dehydration, medication prompts), the escalation is prioritised and documented, including who was informed (family/next of kin if agreed, on-call manager, or commissioner contact routes if required).

How effectiveness/change is evidenced: The provider can evidence missed call rate, average lateness, reallocation success, and incident correlation (for example, falls linked to delayed morning calls). Contract monitoring packs can include monthly trend graphs, narrative on outliers, and actions taken.

Operational Example 3: Digital care planning to evidence person-centred practice and risk management

Context: Technology in care planning is often scored under person-centred care, outcomes, safeguarding, MCA/DoLS alignment, restrictive practice reduction, and quality assurance.

Support approach: The provider uses structured digital care planning with outcome goals, daily notes aligned to outcomes, risk assessments, and review prompts. Plans include clear “what good looks like” guidance and escalation steps.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff access the care plan before providing support, record outcome-linked notes (not just task completion), and update dynamic risks (for example, self-neglect indicators, aggression triggers, community safety risks). The system prompts reviews after defined events: incidents, safeguarding concerns, health deterioration, or repeated refusals. Managers complete planned monthly plan audits, and team meetings review themes emerging from digital notes, including restrictive practice triggers and de-escalation effectiveness.

How effectiveness/change is evidenced: Evidence includes: audit results (plan completeness, review compliance), examples of plan changes triggered by data (for example, updated behavioural support guidance), and tracked outcomes (engagement, community access, reduced incidents). This demonstrates that digital records drive practice improvement rather than acting as passive storage.

Commissioner expectation (explicit)

Commissioner expectation: Commissioners typically expect technology to support contract performance visibility and risk control. Practically, that means the provider can produce reliable, repeatable reporting for key performance areas (timeliness, outcomes, incidents, safeguarding response times, training compliance), and can evidence management action when performance dips. In tender wording, spell out what you report monthly/quarterly, the thresholds used, and the governance route for exceptions (for example, service manager review, senior leadership oversight, corrective action plans).

Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC) (explicit)

Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): CQC will look for evidence that digital systems support safe care, good governance, and accurate records rather than creating additional risk. Providers should be able to show that records are contemporaneous, staff have appropriate access controls, incidents and safeguarding are recorded and followed up, and audits lead to improvement. In tender responses, describe how digital access is role-based, how managers audit record quality, and how learning from incidents is embedded into practice through updated guidance and supervision.

How to write the tender narrative so it is “auditable”

Assessors and moderators respond well to digital narratives that are structured like assurance evidence. A useful format is:

What we use: the system type and what it covers (care planning, visits, medicines, incidents, outcomes, workforce).
How it is used daily: who logs what, when, and what prompts/controls exist.
What is reviewed: dashboards, audits, meeting cadence, exception reporting.
What changes as a result: examples of corrective actions, training actions, plan updates.
What we can evidence: KPIs, audit results, incident trends, learning logs.

Common pitfalls that reduce scores

Feature dumping: long lists of features without showing operational use.
No thresholds: stating “we monitor” without defining what triggers action.
Weak governance: no clarity on who reviews data and how often.
Disconnected outcomes: not linking technology to the specific service outcomes the tender values (quality, safety, responsiveness, VFM).

What to measure (practically) to support future tenders

If you want to strengthen future bids, build a small set of metrics you can reliably report and explain. For many services, the most defensible are: missed/late support measures, medicines omissions/late administrations, incident rates and response times, safeguarding response tracking, plan review compliance, and training compliance linked to risk. The key is not having “more data”, but having data you can govern, interpret and act on.