Recurring concern
Unreliable CAD systems for safety-critical information
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correctionFirst reported 18 Jan 2018•Latest report 10 Mar 2026
What this concern includes
Includes failures of explicitly identified computer-aided dispatch systems across emergency services where CAD information is incomplete, inaccurate, outdated, inaccessible or not reliably communicated for risk assessment, location, triage, dispatch or response decisions.
Not included
- Excludes generic emergency call-handling or dispatch-capacity failures where no CAD-system deficiency is identified.
- Excludes clinical or operational information-system failures not explicitly involving a computer-aided dispatch system.
- Excludes failures limited to staff training, communication or record keeping unless they directly impair the safety-critical operation or information reliability of a CAD system.
- Excludes downstream emergency response or treatment failures where the relevant CAD information was reliable and available.
- Reports
- 4
- Individual concerns
- 4
- Date range
- 2018–2026
- Stated actions
- 12
Distinct published reports
A report can raise multiple concerns
First to latest report issue date
Described in published responses
Reports over time
Reports over time
Reports about this concern issued each year.
* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.
Most frequent recipients
Most frequent recipients
Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.
Concerns and responses across reports
Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain accurate and up-to-date CAD address and map data
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
-
Action
Include unmatched Royal Mail address data in NGD Address V3.
Stated by Ordnance Survey Limited -
Action
Analyse unmatched address records across England and Wales and prioritise them for resolution by local authorities.
Stated by Ordnance Survey Limited -
Action
Work with Central Bedfordshire Council to address unresolved and unmatched VOA and PAF records, including 27B.
Stated by Ordnance Survey Limited
-
Action
Promote Emergency Services’ and Licensed Partners’ adoption and use of NGD Address V3.
Stated by Ordnance Survey Limited
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Local authorities are responsible for maintaining authoritative address registers, and resolving unmatched addresses depends on their cooperation and engagement.
Stated by Ordnance Survey Limited
-
Concerns raised1
Failure of EMAS staff to reliably read and consider transferred Computer Aided Dispatch information
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
-
Action
Review transferred EMAS cases and monthly UCCH highlights, escalating risks through joint governance structures.
Stated by NEMS -
Action
Improve CAD-to-Adastra transfer formatting, structure, legibility and visibility of prior clinical validation through ongoing technical engagement.
Stated by NEMS -
Action
Implement BaRS in Adastra and progress migration from the legacy ITK framework with partner organisations and required system configuration.
Stated by NEMS
-
Action
Review whether internal risk flags are needed when duplicated or poorly formatted transferred information obscures clinical clarity.
Stated by NEMS -
Action
Require clinicians to review available information and make all Category 3 transfers through a clinical-only process, ending manual pushes to NEMS.
Stated by East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Position
Concerns other than concern three are better addressed by EMAS, NEMS and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board.
Stated by NHS England
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to keep continuous CAD records updated with changing patient information
This report raised 13 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statementsNo respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to clearly record the initial risk assessment in the CAD
This report raised 7 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concernsEach statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
-
Action
Maintain and apply new missing-person call-handling guidance requiring clear recording of risk levels in incident logs.
Stated by Sussex Police -
Action
Deliver scenario-based training to contact handlers and controllers on recording missing-person incidents under the new process.
Stated by Sussex Police -
Action
Provide duty inspectors with continuing professional development on managing threat, harm and risk and documenting decisions clearly in incident logs.
Stated by Sussex Police
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Position
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust will respond directly to concerns one, two and three.
Stated by Sussex Police
-
Position
Existing missing-person processes, policies, risk controls and staff training are considered sufficient to address the concerns.
Stated by Sussex Police
Data last updated 7 September 2026