Using Technology as Scored Evidence in Adult Social Care Tenders
Technology is increasingly treated as scored evidence in adult social care tenders, particularly where commissioners are seeking stronger assurance on quality, safety, workforce resilience and service continuity. However, many providers still describe technology as a general “enabler” rather than translating it into operational control, measurable assurance and governance oversight. This article explains how to present technology as scored evidence that evaluators can follow and verify, using practical UK delivery examples and clear commissioning and CQC context.
For related tender-focused resources, see Technology in Tenders and Digital Care Planning.
When technology becomes “scored” in tender evaluation
Technology becomes scored evidence when it is directly linked to the evaluator’s concerns, for example:
- Safety: medicines, incidents, safeguarding, escalation
- Quality assurance: audits, oversight, learning, compliance
- Workforce resilience: training, rota integrity, supervision control
- Continuity and mobilisation: stable transfer, record accuracy, readiness
- Value for money: productivity, reduced duplication, targeted oversight
If technology is described without these links, it is rarely scored highly, even if the systems are strong in practice.
What evaluators need to see: control, not capability
Evaluators typically want to understand three things:
- How technology changes what staff do in daily delivery
- How managers use technology to maintain oversight and respond to risk
- How outcomes are evidenced in a way that can be audited
Writing that “we use a digital system” is not enough. You need to describe the operational pathway from data capture to management action.
Operational Example 1: eMAR and medicines safety as scored evidence
Context: Medicines management is frequently scored and is a high-risk area in inspection. Commissioners want evidence of control, prompt response and learning when errors occur.
Support approach: The provider uses electronic medicines administration records (eMAR) with prompts, alerts and structured escalation for omissions or anomalies.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff receive timed prompts for administration windows and must record reasons for non-administration (refusal, not available, clinical hold). If a critical medicine is missed, the system triggers an alert to the senior on shift and the manager. Managers review daily exception reports to identify patterns such as repeated refusals or late administrations and initiate follow-up actions (GP review, pharmacy liaison, support plan updates, staff retraining).
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Evidence includes reduced omission rates, faster escalation for missed critical medicines, audit trails of management review, and documented learning actions following errors.
Operational Example 2: Digital quality audits linked to governance and improvement
Context: Quality assurance sections are often scored on how providers monitor standards, detect early warning signs and drive improvement across multiple services.
Support approach: The provider uses digital audit tools with standardised templates aligned to internal quality standards and relevant regulatory lines of enquiry.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Managers complete scheduled audits (care planning quality, medicines, safeguarding, environment, staff files) and upload evidence. Audit findings automatically generate actions with owners and deadlines. Senior leaders review a monthly assurance dashboard that highlights overdue actions and recurrent themes across services. Where themes indicate systemic risk (for example repeated gaps in MCA recording), the provider implements targeted improvement plans, supervision focus and training updates.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Evidence includes audit completion rates, action closure rates, repeat finding reduction, and examples of improvement initiatives that changed practice and reduced risk.
Operational Example 3: Technology-enabled safeguarding escalation and restrictive practice oversight
Context: Safeguarding and restrictive practice governance are key areas of commissioner and regulator focus, especially for services supporting people with complex needs.
Support approach: The provider embeds structured safeguarding pathways and restrictive practice recording into the digital record system, including management review and oversight controls.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff record safeguarding concerns and any restrictive interventions using structured fields (what happened, why, de-escalation attempted, immediate protective actions). The system requires manager review within defined timeframes. Restrictive practice entries trigger a weekly review process, considering proportionality, least restrictive alternatives, behaviour support updates and staff learning. Governance meetings review patterns by person and service, ensuring any increase in restrictions triggers action such as specialist input or environmental changes.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Evidence includes response times to safeguarding concerns, referral outcomes tracked, reductions in restrictive interventions over time, and documented governance decisions supporting least restrictive practice.
Commissioner expectation (explicit)
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect technology to demonstrate real operational control and measurable assurance. Tender responses should show that digital systems produce actionable information, drive timely escalation and support consistent delivery across staff and services.
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC) (explicit)
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): CQC expects robust systems for monitoring quality and managing risk. Inspectors look for evidence of accurate, contemporaneous records, effective learning from incidents and clear governance oversight. Technology should strengthen accountability and consistency, not substitute for it.
Making technology evidence “followable” for evaluators
To present technology as scored evidence, structure your writing so the evaluator can follow the chain:
- What data is captured (by whom, when, and with what consistency controls)
- What triggers escalation (thresholds, alerts, timeframes)
- What management action follows (decisions, follow-ups, accountability)
- What governance oversight exists (audits, dashboards, meetings, learning loops)
- What outcomes improve (risk reduction, compliance, continuity, user outcomes)
This approach reduces reliance on broad claims and replaces them with operationally credible evidence. It also ensures your digital capability is presented in a way that aligns with commissioning decision logic and regulator expectations.