Recurring concern
Unreliable CAD systems for safety-critical information
- Reports that mention this concern
- 4
- Times this concern has been raised
- 4
- Stated actions linked to this concern
- 12
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identified computer-aided dispatch systems across emergency services where CAD information is incomplete, inaccurate, outdated, inaccessible or not reliably communicated for risk assessment, location, triage, dispatch or response decisions.
What is 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.
Trends
Reports over time
Reports mentioning this concern, 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.
Reports and published responses 4 reports
See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response
-
Concerns raised1
Failure to maintain accurate and up-to-date CAD address and map data
Linked response
- Ordnance Survey Limited
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4
-
Ordnance Survey Limited
Include unmatched Royal Mail address data in NGD Address V3.
-
Ordnance Survey Limited
Analyse unmatched address records across England and Wales and prioritise them for resolution by local authorities.
-
Ordnance Survey Limited
Work with Central Bedfordshire Council to address unresolved and unmatched VOA and PAF records, including 27B.
-
Ordnance Survey Limited
Promote Emergency Services’ and Licensed Partners’ adoption and use of NGD Address V3.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
Ordnance Survey Limited
Local authorities are responsible for maintaining authoritative address registers, and resolving unmatched addresses depends on their cooperation and engagement.
-
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.
Linked responses
- East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
- NEMS
- NHS England
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.5
-
NEMS
Review transferred EMAS cases and monthly UCCH highlights, escalating risks through joint governance structures.
-
NEMS
Improve CAD-to-Adastra transfer formatting, structure, legibility and visibility of prior clinical validation through ongoing technical engagement.
-
NEMS
Implement BaRS in Adastra and progress migration from the legacy ITK framework with partner organisations and required system configuration.
-
NEMS
Review whether internal risk flags are needed when duplicated or poorly formatted transferred information obscures clinical clarity.
-
East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust
Require clinicians to review available information and make all Category 3 transfers through a clinical-only process, ending manual pushes to NEMS.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1
-
NHS England
Concerns other than concern three are better addressed by EMAS, NEMS and Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Integrated Care Board.
-
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.
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.
Linked response
- Sussex Police
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3
-
Sussex Police
Maintain and apply new missing-person call-handling guidance requiring clear recording of risk levels in incident logs.
-
Sussex Police
Deliver scenario-based training to contact handlers and controllers on recording missing-person incidents under the new process.
-
Sussex Police
Provide duty inspectors with continuing professional development on managing threat, harm and risk and documenting decisions clearly in incident logs.
Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2
-
Sussex Police
Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust will respond directly to concerns one, two and three.
-
Sussex Police
Existing missing-person processes, policies, risk controls and staff training are considered sufficient to address the concerns.
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.
Data last updated 7 September 2026