Digital switchover: insights from the Partners in Care and Health (PCH) digital switchover survey
This report presents findings from the Partners in Care and Health (PCH) digital switchover survey, commissioned by Department of Health and Social Care to assess councils’ readiness for the migration from analogue to digital telecare services. The survey received 66 responses, including 63 councils with adult social care responsibilities, representing a response rate of approximately 42% of upper-tier authorities. While this limits the extent to which findings can be generalised across the whole sector, the results provide a snapshot of progress (May 2025), confidence levels, and areas of emerging risk as the January 2027 switch-off deadline approaches. Please note that whilst the survey was commissioned by DHSC the interpretations and considerations within the report are those of Partners in Care and Health.
Overall, responding councils report high confidence in managing the digital switchover, with almost all indicating they are either very or fairly confident in minimising disruption to telecare services. Progress towards digital telecare is well advanced in many areas, with a further half of councils having more than half of their alarms digitally capable and a quarter already fully digital. For people who rely on telecare, councils expect the transition to deliver improved service reliability, enhanced care and support, better interoperability, and richer data and insights. These outcomes are seen as enabling more responsive and preventative models of care, improving safety and supporting independence for vulnerable residents.
However, the survey also highlights significant challenges that could impact people if not addressed. A notable minority of councils still have large proportions of analogue alarms in use, leaving some individuals at risk of service failure or accidental migration as network changes accelerate. Reliance on mobile connectivity introduces further risks, particularly in areas with poor coverage or as the 2G network is withdrawn. Uneven awareness of switchover impacts beyond adult social care, especially in housing, raises the potential for wider system failures affecting alarms, lifts or other critical services used by the public.
Financial and operational pressures remain a central concern. While most councils have identified a funding approach, this is largely reliant on adult social care and core council budgets, adding strain to already stretched services in the absence of dedicated central funding. Supplier readiness and data-sharing arrangements with communication providers are inconsistent, increasing the risk of delays and unmanaged transitions. Although councils do expect benefits from the digital switchover, long-term financial savings are uncertain, and realising the full value of digital telecare will depend on sustained investment and continued national support to mitigate risks to both services and the people who depend on them.
Key findings
Confidence among responding councils with regards to managing the digital switchover (N = 64) is high, with 57.8 per cent (37 councils) very confident and 40.6 per cent (26 councils) fairly confident. However, even the single council (1.6 per cent) reporting low confidence indicates potentially uneven preparedness.
Awareness is strongest in adult social care (N = 66), where 89.4 per cent (59 councils) are fully aware of switchover impacts but awareness drops significantly elsewhere, for example, housing services (N = 61; 37.7 per cent / 23 councils ‘fully aware), which may signal organisational gaps
With regards to funding the switchover (N = 63), most councils (87.3 per cent / 55 councils) have established a funding approach, but the 12.7 per cent (eight councils) without a plan, as well as a heavy reliance on ASC and core budgets, reflect ongoing financial strain and limited flexibility. It should be noted that this reallocation of resource, alongside a lack of central funding, may place additional strain on already stretched council services.
Councils do foresee benefits from digital telecare, particularly around enhancing care and support (N = 48; 60.4 per cent / 29 councils expecting ‘many benefits’), however, long-term savings (N = 58) are uncertain, with 29.3 per cent (17 councils) expecting no financial benefit from the switchover.
Around one third of councils (31.7 per cent / 20 councils) have changed supplier to meet digital requirements but most changes were driven by supplier readiness (N = 17; 94.1 per cent / 16 councils citing this as a contributing factor).
Half of responding councils (50 per cent / 32 councils) experienced no supplier / provider related delays, however, the remaining half did, including 14.1 per cent (nine councils) substantial and 14.1 per cent (nine councils) moderate, highlighting inconsistent experiences across suppliers / providers.
With regards to digital progress (N = 63), 25.4 per cent (16 councils) of councils were already fully digital with 54 per cent (34 councils) having more than half of their alarms upgraded, but a combined 20.7 per cent(13 councils) still have less than half or none upgraded, which may leave people at risk of service cut-off as we progress towards the January 2027 deadline.
Of those councils providing telecare (N = 63), mobile-reliant alarms were common, with 73 per cent (46 councils) using devices at least somewhat reliant on mobile connectivity (2G / 4G). The retirement of the 2G network may introduce future reliability risks for councils with devices solely dependent on this network.
With regards to Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) capabilities (N = 63), 84.1 per cent (53 councils) reported that their ARC was already able to receive alarm calls digitally with a further 9.5 per cent (six councils) noting that this was progressing. That 6.3 per cent (four councils) of responding councils could not confirm their ARC status is concerning, reflecting pockets of uncertainty on end-to-end telecare digitisation.
While many councils have shared data with at least one communication provider, several councils remain without full coverage across all major networks. These differences appear to reflect varying levels of provider engagement, differing operating models across networks, and the complexity of navigating multiple data sharing agreements simultaneously. Nevertheless, this creates a risk, where an analogue reliant telecare user could be migrated without the necessary mitigations in place.
Some councils have strong data‑matching coverage, with 28.6 per cent (12 councils) matching two‑thirds or more of their telecare users with a communication provider. However, the 45.2 per cent (19 councils) who “don’t know” their matching rate reveal a potential insight gap into the extent to which data sharing activity is protecting their telecare users from accidental migration, where they have not yet achieved a fully digital telecare service.
Key considerations for stakeholders
Central government
To reduce uneven risk through targeted national support: While most councils have identified a funding approach, this is largely reliant on adult social care and core council budgets, placing additional pressure on already stretched services. Targeted national support could help mitigate risk for areas with high volumes of analogue alarms still in use and support investment in resilience measures.
To strengthen convening of national stakeholders for bespoke challenges: Awareness of switchover impacts is high within adult social care but significantly lower across other service areas, for example, in housing. The cohesive convening of stakeholders, aligned to ongoing challenges (e.g. group-scheme alarms) may help to reinforce the whole-system nature of the switchover and support councils to take a more corporate approach.
To improve assurance over data sharing and matching: While many councils have shared data with one or more communication providers, a large proportion cannot yet confirm the extent to which telecare users are matched and protected. Developing greater local visibility of data sharing coverage and gaps could strengthen assurance and reduce the risk of unmanaged migration.
Local government
To continue to prioritise the completion of end-to-end digital telecare migration: Although progress is well advanced overall, a minority of councils still have a significant proportion of analogue alarms in use, which may increase the risk of service disruption as the 2027 deadline approaches. Continued focus on upgrading remaining analogue equipment, alongside mitigations such as data sharing, can help reduce this risk.
To strengthen organisational awareness and coordination: The survey highlights variation in awareness across council services beyond adult social care. Supporting collaboration between ASC, housing, property, IT and other relevant services can help identify and address risks associated with wider analogue dependencies across the council estate. Upper-tier councils may wish to develop their understanding of progress within their district councils, particularly where group-scheme alarms are offered through housing provision.
To improve assurance over data sharing and matching: While data sharing is now widespread, many councils have shared data with a varying number of communication providers, and as such, have varying proportions of telecare users without a matched provider. Where analogue alarms remain, councils may wish to develop insight into (1) the number of data sharing agreements signed so far, (2) the proportion of their telecare customers matched as a result and (3) what risk mitigations can be put in place for those telecare customers who have not yet been matched with a communication provider.
On continued analogue use: Where analogue services currently remain in use, councils may wish to take active steps to manage these risks by ensuring telecare customers are kept informed, devices are regularly tested, and communication providers are engaged. New analogue installations are strongly discouraged except as a short-term last resort where no digital alternative is viable; in mobile not spots, councils may wish to consider fixed broadband-based telecare as a more sustainable option. In these instances, councils may also wish to strengthen data sharing with communication providers, monitor performance and call failure rates, and prioritise replacement where reliability concerns are identified.
Key considerations for telecommunications providers
To increase consistency of engagement: Council experience of provider engagement and data sharing vary significantly between providers. While some have been highly engaged, others have not, creating a confusing picture for councils looking to protect vulnerable residents. Consistent cross-provider approaches to engagement may help councils to plan with greater confidence.
Opportunity to support resilience as networks continue to evolve: With further network changes, including 2G retirement, already underway, clear communication on timelines and implications can help councils and suppliers plan for resilient solutions, particularly in areas with variable connectivity.
Key considerations for telecare suppliers / providers
Opportunity to demonstrate readiness and futureproofing: Supplier readiness was a key factor influencing councils’ progress and, in some cases, decisions to change provider. Clear assurance on digital capability, testing and resilience can support councils to manage risk and plan transitions more effectively.
Opportunity to support realisation of digital benefits: Councils expect benefits from digital telecare, including improved reliability, interoperability and data insights, but these are contingent on wider service models and infrastructure. Working collaboratively with councils can help translate technical capability into improved outcomes for residents.
Opportunity to maintain strong engagement through the final phase of transition: While engagement levels are generally positive, a minority of councils report delays or inconsistent support. Continued, proactive engagement, particularly as the switchover accelerates, can help ensure end-to-end readiness and reduce the risk of service disruption.
Introduction
The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) migration, also known as ‘the digital switchover’, is an industry-led digital transformation project, migrating individuals from the analogue landline network to digital IP-based technologies. The switchover is necessary because the current analogue landline network is decades old and failure rates are increasing as the infrastructure ages. The digital switchover means that traditional analogue devices, such as telephone handsets and telecare units connected to the analogue network, will need to be upgraded / reconnected to the digital network. There is also a risk that other analogue-reliant devices, such as alarm systems or lifts, may also be disrupted or fail.
There is a risk that analogue to digital migrations may disrupt telecare services, with devices designed to operate on analogue landlines having a higher rate of failure when connected to digital telephone landlines. There is a need for these devices to be replaced as quickly as possible to mitigate any risk of failure or disruption.
In April / May 2025, Partners in Care and Health conducted a survey to gauge councils’ current position on awareness, planning and implementation of the digital switchover
The work was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care to further understanding as to progress, identify key areas of challenge and / or concern, and where further support should be targeted.
The survey launched April 2, 2025 and remained open until May 23, 2025. From the 66 responses received, 63 were from councils with responsibility for adult social care (ASC) and three were from district councils. With regards to councils with ASC responsibility, this was a response rate of 41 per cent.
The survey was conducted using Qualtrics, an online survey platform which councils were invited to complete using a link that was circulated through a variety of means including:
PCH bulletin
ADASS bulletin
MHCLG bulletin
ADASS Regional Digital Forums
Digital Switchover Steering Group
Other PSTN Forums
The survey launched on April 2, 2025 and remained open until May 23, 2025. From the 66 responses received, 63 were from upper tier local authorities and three were from districts. This was a response rate of 42 per cent for upper tier local authorities.
This level of response rate means that these results should not be taken to be more widely representative of the views of all councils. Rather, they are a snapshot of the views of this particular group of respondents.
The number of responses may differ between questions, where councils may have chosen to leave a question blank. Additionally, the number of responses within a specific question may also differ, where multiple options were provided within a question, and councils could select as many options as were relevant. As such, care should be taken when interpreting percentages, as well as in any attempt at comparison. For each section, the number of responses has been provided with ‘n =’ to facilitate interpretation of the data.
Of those councils that completed the survey (N = 66), the Of those councils that completed the survey (N = 66), the vast majority (97.0 per cent / 64 councils) had some form of responsibility for telecare: either provided in-house (45.5 per cent / 30 councils), commissioned by a telecare provider (40.9 per cent / 27 councils) or provided through other means (10.6 per cent / seven councils). Just two councils (3.0 per cent) did not provide a telecare service.
As previously stated, 97 per cent of responding councils had some form of responsibility for telecare (N = 64). Most councils reported that they were either ‘very confident’ (57.8 per cent / 37 councils) or ‘fairly confident’ (40.6 per cent / 26 councils) in their ability to manage the digital switchover with minimal impact on their telecare services and users. Just one council (1.6 per cent) was ‘not very confident’ in their ability to manage the digital switchover.
Whilst this does present a broadly positive picture of sector confidence in managing the transition, the presence of even a single lower confidence council indicates that some areas may still be behind in their preparations. It is also important to note that these findings reflect a sample of councils, and the overall level of readiness across the sector may be more variable than these headline figures suggest.
The awareness of the impact of the digital switchover on different service areas varied among respondents. Awareness for each service area is as follows:
Telecare services for adult social care (N = 66)
‘Fully aware’ (89.4 per cent / 59 councils)
‘Mostly aware’ (10.6 per cent / seven councils).
Housing services (N = 61)
‘Fully aware’ (37.7 per cent / 23 councils)
‘Mostly aware’ (11.5 per cent / seven councils)
‘Somewhat aware’ (3.3 per cent / two councils)
‘Not at all aware’ (1.6 per cent / one council)
‘Unable to say’ (45.9 per cent / 28 councils).
Children’s services (N = 61)
‘Fully aware’ (21.3 per cent / 13 councils)
‘Mostly aware’ (19.7 per cent / 12 councils)
‘Somewhat aware’ (3.3 per cent / two councils)
‘Unable to say’ (55.7 per cent / 34 councils)
Information technology and systems (N = 62)
‘Fully aware’ (53.2 per cent / 33 councils)
‘Mostly aware’ (16.1 per cent / 10 councils)
‘Somewhat aware’ (6.5 per cent / four councils)
‘Unable to say’ (24.2 per cent / 15 councils
Highways and transport (N = 61)
‘Fully aware’ (26.2 per cent / 16 councils)
‘Mostly aware’ (11.5 per cent / seven councils)
‘Somewhat aware’ (4.9 per cent / three councils)
‘Not at all aware’ (1.6 per cent / one council)
‘Unable to say’ (55.7 per cent / 34 councils)
Corporate property (N = 62)
‘Fully aware’ (35.5 per cent / 22 councils)
‘Mostly aware’ (9.7 per cent / six councils)
‘Somewhat aware’ (4.8 per cent / three councils)
‘Not at all aware’ (1.6 per cent / one council)
‘Unable to say’ (48.4 per cent / 30 councils)
This variation may be explained by a number of factors:
The survey was predominantly completed by ASC leads, with a greater awareness of activity within their own directorate, as opposed to other service areas within the local authority.
The impact of the switchover on ASC telecare services has been a key focus, particularly due to the risk associated with a telecare alarm failing to function correctly in the event of an emergency. This is evident in national policy, such as the Telecare National Action Plan (TNAP), as well as communication provider activity, such as the National Telecare Campaign (NTC). Taken together, it follows that awareness among responding councils was higher for ASC telecare services.
There has been less activity across these services areas in preparation for the digital switchover, thus contributing to this lower awareness.
Regardless of driver, the digital switchover has wide-reaching implications, with risks to housing (e.g. group-scheme telecare alarms) and the wider council estate (e.g. lifts, fire alarms, security alarms etc.). If these issues aren’t addressed, councils may face significant operational disruption, increased safety risks for residents and building users, unplanned financial pressures, and potential legal or regulatory consequences from failing to maintain critical systems. Where possible, switchover leads within an organisation should be encouraged and supported to collaborate across services to facilitate a comprehensive and resilient transition.
When asked whether they had an established funding approach to the digital switchover (N = 63), most councils knew how they would fund the move from analogue to digital (87.3 per cent / 55 councils) whilst the remaining councils did not know how they would be funding the move (12.7 per cent / eight councils).
Whilst broadly positive, councils have faced, and have voiced, several challenges in securing funding for the digital switchover, a transition that was pushed for by industry.
These challenges have included navigating historic funding cuts, challenges with supplier readiness, varying digital maturity, alongside pressures to avoid service disruption and potential risk to life. Taken together, these factors reflect that although most councils have identified a funding route, many are still operating within tight financial constraints, balancing the urgency of the transition with competing service pressures.
Of those councils with a funding approach (N = 55), how councils are approaching funding the digital switchover also varied, with a detailed breakdown as follows:
Funding from adult social care service budgets: ‘a significant proportion of the funding comes from here’ (25.5 per cent / 14 councils), ‘some of the funding comes from here’ (36.4 per cent / 20 councils), ‘none of the funding comes from here’ (12.7 per cent / seven councils).
Funding from core councils budgets: ‘a significant proportion of the funding comes from here’ (29.1 per cent / 16 councils), ‘some of the funding comes from here’ (23.6 per cent / 13 councils), ‘none of the funding comes from here’ (20.0 per cent / 11 councils).
Introducing telecare service user charges: ‘a significant proportion of the funding comes from here’ (1.8 per cent / one council), ‘some of the funding comes from here’ (10.9 per cent / six councils), ‘none of the funding comes from here’ (41.8 per cent / 23 councils).
Increasing existing telecare user service charges: ‘a significant proportion of the funding comes from here’ (9.1 per cent / five councils), ‘some of the funding comes from here’ (23.6 per cent / 13 councils), ‘none of the funding comes from here’ (29.1 per cent / 16 councils).
Other sources: ‘a significant proportion of the funding comes from here’ (25.5 per cent / 14 councils), ‘some of the funding comes from here’ (5.5 per cent / three councils), ‘none of the funding comes from here’ (5.5 per cent / three councils).
The two most prominent means of funding the digital switchover were adult social care budgets and core council budgets, the former cited more commonly overall as either a significant (25.5 per cent / 14 councils), or part-source (36.4 per cent / 20 councils), and the latter the most often cited as a significant source of funding (29.1 per cent / 16 councils).
Introducing telecare service user charges was the least favoured approach with just one council citing it as a significant source of funding and a large proportion (41.8 per cent / 23 councils) reporting it as not being used at all.
Increasing existing charges saw slightly more uptake, with a small proportion of councils citing it as a significant funding source (9.1 per cent / five councils) and a slightly larger group as a partial source (23.6 per cent / 13 councils).
Finally, other sources were also a prominent means of funding the digital switchover, with a large proportion of councils citing it as a significant funding source (25.5 per cent / 14 councils). Specific examples ranged from use of the Better Care Fund, Disabled Facilities Grant, as well as capital budgets.
Overall, these figures indicate a strong preference among responding councils for internal council funding mechanisms over user-based charging models with regards to financing the shift to digital telecare. It should be noted, however, that this reallocation of resource, alongside a lack of central funding, may place additional strain on already stretched council services.
The degree to which different councils expected to realise benefits as a result because of the migration to digital varied, this variation is displayed as follows:
Benefits for the adult social care service overall (N = 48)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience many benefits’ (60.4 per cent / 29 councils)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience some benefits’ (16.7 per cent / eight councils)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience no benefits’ (12.5 per cent / six councils)
‘Unable to say’ (10.4 per cent / five councils)
Improved service reliability (N = 46)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience many benefits’ (52.2 per cent / 24 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience some benefits’ (30.4 per cent / 14 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience no benefits’ (8.7 per cent / four councils)
‘Unable to say’ (8.7 per cent / four councils).
Enhanced care and support (N = 48)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience many benefits’ (60.4 per cent / 29 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience some benefits’ (16.7 per cent / eight councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience no benefits’ (14.6 per cent / four councils)
‘Unable to say’ (8.3 per cent / four councils).
Long term financial savings (N = 58)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience many benefits’ (27.6 per cent / 16 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience some benefits’ (36.2 per cent / 21 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience no benefits’ (29.3 per cent / 17 councils)
‘Unable to say’ (6.9 per cent / four councils).
Interoperability (of digital systems and records) (N = 51)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience many benefits’ (58.8 per cent / 30 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience some benefits’ (23.5 per cent / 12 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience no benefits’ (11.8 per cent / six councils)
‘Unable to say’ (5.9 per cent / three councils).
Improved data and insights (N = 46)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience many benefits’ (58.7 per cent / 27 councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience some benefits’ (17.4 per cent / eight councils),
‘Have experienced / expect to experience no benefits’ (17.4 per cent / eight councils)
‘Unable to say’ (6.5 per cent / three councils).
Other (N = 63)
‘Have experienced / expect to experience no benefits’ (4.8 per cent / three councils)
‘Unable to say’ (95.2 per cent / 60 councils).
Councils largely expect to realise benefits from the transition to digital, particularly around service reliability and interoperability. For service reliability (N = 46), a large proportion of councils expected to realise either ‘many’ (52.2 per cent / 24 councils) or ‘some’ (30.4 per cent / 14 councils) benefits. Across the same measures, the figures for interoperability were similarly positive, at 58.8 per cent / 30 councils for many benefits and 23.5 per cent / 12 councils for some benefits.
A similar pattern is reflected in perceptions of impact on adult social care overall (many benefits: 60.4 per cent / 29 councils; some benefits: 16.7 per cent / eight councils), enhanced care and support (many benefits: 60.4 per cent / 29 councils; some benefits: 16.7 per cent / eight councils) and improved data and insights (many benefits: 58.7 per cent / 27 councils; some benefits: 17.4 per cent / eight councils).
However, free-text responses indicate that the realisation of these benefits is highly contingent on supplier readiness, network stability (broadband / mobile coverage), ARC capability, as well as councils’ capacity to invest in wraparound service models that can act on digital insights.
Reliability (N = 46) in particular emerges as both a headline benefit and a key risk area; despite the overall positive responses, a minority reported no benefits (8.7 per cent / four councils) or were unable to say (8.7 per cent / four councils), with comments highlighting concerns around power outages, variable signal strength, communication issues and ultimately, safety concerns for vulnerable residents.
Long term financial savings was reported as the most mixed area, whilst a majority expected to realise either many (27.6 per cent / 16 councils) or some (36.2 per cent / 21 councils) benefits, a notable group reported no expected benefits (29.3 per cent / 17 councils) with free-text responses highlighting increased ongoing costs (e.g. SIMs) as well as the additional investment that would be required to realise proactive and preventative pathways.
Overall, results highlight that a large proportion of councils are positive regarding the benefits that the transition to digital may enable, however, the realisation of these benefits is only achievable when the necessary infrastructure and operating model are in place.
When asked (N= 63) whether or not they had changed their telecare supplier / provider due to the digital switchover) the majority (68.3 per cent / 43 councils) of responding councils had retained their existing telecare supplier / provider throughout the digital switchover. However, roughly a third of councils (31.7 per cent / 20 councils) had opted to change their telecare supplier / provider.
Of those councils that changed supplier / provider due to the digital switchover (N = 20), the reasons for that change varied. These reasons are as follows:
Telecare supplier did not have a digital solution available (N = 17)
‘Main reason for the decision to change’ (52.9 per cent / nine councils)
‘Contributed to the decision to change’ (41.2 per cent / seven councils)
‘Did not contribute to the decision to change’ (5.9 per cent / one council)
Cost and value for money (N = 15)
‘Main reason for the decision to change’ (13.3 per cent / two councils)
‘Contributed to the decision to change’ (66.7 per cent / 10 councils)
‘Did not contribute to the decision to change’ (20.0 per cent / three councils)
Futureproofing (N = 16)
‘Main reason for the decision to change’ (50.0 per cent / eight councils)
‘Contributed to the decision to change’ (43.8 per cent / seven councils)
‘Did not contribute to the decision to change’ (6.3 per cent / one council)
‘Main reason for the decision to change’ (38.5 per cent / five councils)
‘Contributed to the decision to change’ (46.2 per cent / six councils)
‘Did not contribute to the decision to change’ (15.4 per cent / two councils)
Other (N = 4)
‘Main reason for the decision to change’ (75.0 per cent / three councils)
‘Contributed to the decision to change’ (25.0 per cent / one council)
The data above highlights that decisions to changes supplier / provider were driven primarily by a combination of market readiness and long-term service resilience. Where the availability of a digital solution was concerned (N = 17), this was almost always a factor (94.1 per cent / 16 councils) and was the main reason for changing in more than half of cases (52.9 per cent / nine councils).
Similarly, futureproofing (N = 16) was near-universal as a driver (93.8 per cent / 15 councils) and was the main reason for change for half of responding councils in this category (50.0 per cent / eight councils). Network coverage and infrastructure challenges (N = 13) also played a substantial role (84.7 per cent / 11 councils) with a smaller group (38.5 per cent / five councils) citing this as the main reason.
By contrast, cost and value for money (N = 15) was most commonly reported as contributing to the decision to change suppler / provider (66.7 per cent / 10 councils) rather than acting as the principal driver (13.3 per cent / two councils), suggesting that decisions around switching supplier / provider were often shaped first by digital capability and risk considerations, and only secondarily by affordability.
To reiterate, of all responding councils with responsibility for telecare (N = 64), roughly a third (31.3 per cent or 20 councils) had opted to change their telecare supplier or provider.
Nevertheless, half of this larger group (50.0 per cent or 32 councils) had experienced some form of delay due to the readiness of their supplier or provider. The extent of the delay did vary within this group between ‘substantial delays’ (14.1 per cent or nine councils), ‘moderate delays’ (14.1 per cent or nine councils) and ‘some delays’ (21.9 per cent or 14 councils). Equally true, however, is that half of responding councils (50.0 per cent or 32 councils) had experienced ‘no delays’ due to their supplier or provider.
This distribution suggests that while many suppliers or providers were prepared for the switchover, a significant proportion of councils encountered challenges that slowed progress. The relatively even split between substantial and moderate delays reinforces these inconsistencies in supplier or provider readiness, with some councils facing more acute barriers than others.
Of those councils that provided their views on telecare supplier or provider engagement with the council, the vast majority (90.6 per cent or 58 councils) reported high levels of engagement with their telecare supplier or provider, either engaging ‘fully’ (60.9 per cent or 39 councils) or ‘mostly’ (29.7 per cent or 19 councils). The remaining responding councils reported either ‘some’ (4.7 per cent or three councils), ‘none’ (1.6 per cent or one council) or ‘unable to say’ (3.1 per cent or two councils) regarding their engagement with their telecare supplier or provider.
As highlighted above, experiences with telecare suppliers or providers have varied between councils, and whilst positive overall, a minority of councils may have received varied support and/or responsiveness. This may have had an impact on councils’ ability to respond to the digital switchover effectively.
A key priority for councils is to have a fully digital telecare alarm service as soon as possible, ahead of the January 2027 switchover deadline.
When asked as to the proportion of installed alarms that were capable of operating digitally (N = 63), roughly a quarter of councils had a telecare alarm service that was fully digital (25.4 per cent or 16 councils), whilst the bulk of responses noted that more than half of their telecare alarms were digitally capable (54.0 per cent or 34 councils). Finally, 17.5 per cent (11 councils) had less than half of their alarms being digitally capable with the remainder (3.2 per cent or two councils) noting that none of their deployed alarms were capable of operating digitally. Whilst these results suggest that overall, the majority of responding councils are progressing steadily with their digital upgrades, there remains a large subset of councils (20.7 per cent or 13 councils) with less than half or none of their deployed alarms as digitally capable. Councils in this position should 1) prioritise data sharing with communication providers to ensure a shared awareness of individuals with analogue telecare devices, and to avoid their accidental migration, and 2) look to upgrade their analogue telecare equipment as soon as possible, ahead of the January 2027 deadline.
Positively, when asked for how long the use of analogue alarms will continue (N = 48) the vast majority (81.3 per cent or 39 councils) were in the process of upgrading their analogue alarms to digital as soon as possible, with a smaller number (6.3 per cent or three councils) continuing to use analogue alarms in the short-term. Whilst ‘other’ responses were a sizeable category (12.5 per cent or six councils), these free-text responses were mostly supplementary detail to an upgrade approach already underway. Nevertheless, a point was raised around the continued use of analogue units in not-spots, areas where poor mobile and broadband connectivity may make immediate digital deployment a challenge. Where progress towards a fully digital telecare alarm service has varied, it should be noted that some of this variation may be explained as a risk-management approach to local infrastructure constraints, as well as other more obvious challenges (e.g. financial constraints, futureproofing etc).
The transition from analogue to digital comes with the understanding that no network is infallible, and that the risk of connectivity loss will remain present. To minimise this risk, current TEC Services Association (TSA) advice suggests that it is advisable for commissioners to procure devices that contain dual connectivity functionality, either in the form of dual-SIM connectivity (e.g. 2G or 4G) and/or direct Ethernet connection. This would provide devices with alternative methods of connection in the event of cellular connectivity loss and provide an extra layer of resilience for the chosen solution. As part of the survey, councils were asked as to the reliance of their digitally capable alarms on mobile connectivity. Of those surveyed (N = 63), the larger share (73.0 per cent or 46 councils) confirmed that some of their digital telecare alarms were reliant on mobile connectivity whilst the remainder did not (27.0 per cent or 17 councils). Whilst the use of SIM-based telecare devices is completely viable, it should be noted that the next major telecoms modernisation initiative, the retirement of the 2G network, is already underway, with VMO2 having started their 2G network withdrawal in October 2025.
Whilst the fact that 73.0 per cent (46 councils) of responding councils have digital devices that are reliant on mobile connectivity does not imply that they are solely reliant on the 2G network, it is likely that some will at least be partly reliant. Where possible, councils may wish to audit their digital offerings to understand the scale of the impact that the retirement of the 2G network may have on the resilience of their telecare service.
An ARC is a monitoring service that receives and acts upon alerts from alarm systems, including telecare. The transition of ARCs to becoming digitally capable has followed a similar trend to that of telecare alarms. Of those councils surveyed (N = 63) the majority (84.1 per cent or 53 councils) noted that their ARC is already capable of receiving calls from digital telecare alarms. A further 9.5 per cent (six councils) reported that their ARC did not have this capability, but that there were clear timescales in place for this capability to be achieved. Finally, 6.3 per cent (four councils) were unable to say. Broadly, these results highlight that ARCs have progressed steadily and are unlikely to act as a blocker to digital telecare provision. Having said that, there remains a minority of ARCs that do not yet have this capability, or where assurance may be lacking, which presents a residual risk to end‑to‑end service readiness.
Views on ARC engagement were similarly positive. When asked about levels of engagement with their ARC or call handling provider (N = 64), the majority of responding councils (67.8 per cent or 37 councils) reported that their ARC was fully engaged. An additional 18.8 per cent (12 councils) noted that their ARC engages with them most of the time, whilst 10.9 per cent (seven councils) reported engagement occurring some of the time. Just 1.6 per cent (one council) of respondents stated that their ARC does not engage with them at all, with a further 10.9 per cent (seven councils) unable to say. Risk here is concentrated in the minority reporting inconsistent engagement (‘some’: 10.9 per cent or seven councils & ‘none’: 1.6 per cent or one council) and those unable to describe engagement levels (10.9 per cent or seven councils). These groups may be more likely to experience coordination failures (e.g. unclear testing arrangements, slower resolution of issues) at precisely the time in which end-to-end assurance is most crucial.
Data sharing between councils and communications providers has been a key enabling mechanism in supporting the safe transition from analogue to digital telecare during the PSTN migration. Its primary purpose has been to identify telecare users to communication providers, avoiding service disruption and ensuring the necessary protection measures can be put in place. Effective data sharing reduces the reliance on vulnerable individuals to self‑identify their needs and supports councils in meeting safeguarding and continuity responsibilities. The extent to which data sharing arrangements are in place, operational, and actively used may therefore provide an indicator of local readiness and assurance for digital telecare provision.
The extent to which data sharing has progressed varies between different communication providers, this variation is detailed as follows:
Provider A (N = 62)
Data has been shared (67.7 per cent or 42 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (4.8 per cent or three councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (8.1 per cent or five councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (19.4 per cent or 12 councils)
Provider B (N = 60)
Data has been shared (60.0 per cent or 36 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (13.3 per cent or eight councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (6.7 per cent or four councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (20 per cent or 12 councils)
Provider C (N = 46)
Data has been shared (34.8 per cent or 16 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (6.5 per cent or three councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (15.2 per cent or seven councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (43.5 per cent or 20 councils)
Provider D (N = 54)
Data has been shared (38.9 per cent or 21 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (7.4 per cent or four councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (11.1 per cent or six councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (42.6 per cent or 23 councils)
Provider E (N = 47)
Data has been shared (14.9 per cent or seven councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (6.4 per cent or three councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (14.9 per cent or seven councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (63.8 per cent or 30 councils)
Data sharing between councils and communication providers is a critical safeguard during the transition from analogue to digital telecare. Its purpose is to ensure that providers can accurately identify telecare users and put in place the protections required to prevent service disruption during migration. This mechanism reduces reliance on vulnerable individuals to self‑identify and supports councils in meeting their safeguarding responsibilities.
National progress on data sharing remains uneven, varying across different communication providers. While some communication providers have engaged constructively, with many councils having already shared data or signed Data Sharing Agreements (DSAs), others have shown lower levels of sector engagement. In some cases, more than 40 per cent of responding councils report having no DSA in place with certain communication providers, highlighting substantial gaps in coverage. These disparities create a fragmented risk landscape in which risk to individual telecare users may vary depending on their communication provider, and/or their council or private telecare provider.
Reasons for this varying data sharing activity are multi-faceted, consisting of different communication provider operating models / infrastructure pressures, varying communication provider and/or telecare provider engagement, as well as the complexity in resourcing and negotiating the signing of multiple data sharing agreements (DSAs) for multiple communication providers or all relevant councils. Nevertheless, providers with well-developed engagement activity show substantially stronger progress than those without. Additionally, a small number of councils have reported that, even after data sharing with major providers, large proportions of their telecare users remain without an identified communication provider. Where telecare customers have not been matched, communication providers may be unaware of telecare users on their networks and could migrate them without the necessary checks, engineering support or resilience measures.
As the digital switchover accelerates into its final year, achieving consistent, high‑quality data sharing across all major communication providers is essential. Closing the current variation is critical to ensuring a safe, coordinated migration and preventing avoidable risks to telecare users.
As previously mentioned, a small number of councils have reported concern that, despite data sharing with major communication providers, there remain large proportions of their telecare numbers without a matched communication provider. Whilst it is true that a council completing its migration to a fully digital telecare alarm service is the best mitigation of risk; for those who have not yet been able to achieve this, there is risk that a person in receipt of telecare, without an identified communication provider, could be migrated unbeknownst to both the communication provider and the council. In this case, the analogue telecare device could fail to work in the event of an emergency, presenting real risk to vulnerable people.
When asked regarding the extent to which data sharing activity had sufficiently covered their telecare users (N = 42), the following responses were received:
Two thirds or more of our telecare customers have a matched communication provider (28.6 per cent or 12 councils)
Between a third and two thirds of our telecare customers have a matched communication provider (23.8 per cent or 10 councils)
Less than a third of our telecare customers have a matched communication provider (2.4 per cent or one council)
Don’t know (45.2 per cent or 19 councils)
As highlighted above only 28.6 per cent of councils (12 councils) reported that two‑thirds or more of users were successfully matched. A further 23.8 per cent (10 councils) indicated that between one‑third and two‑thirds of users had been matched, suggesting partial but incomplete coverage. Just 2.4 per cent (one council) reported that less than one‑third of their telecare users had a matched provider, indicating that pockets of very low customer-provider matching do exist but are a minority. The most striking finding, however, is that 45.2 per cent of councils (19 councils) responded “don’t know”, which may signal limited insight into data sharing coverage at the local level.
Despite this, we should consider several key caveats:
The query does not capture the extent of council data sharing across multiple providers. Some of this data sharing gap may be explained by a lack of data sharing with all PSTN charter communication providers.
Smaller communication providers who are not PSTN charter signatories, and are therefore not signing DSAs, may account for some telecare users
•Among those councils who selected the ‘don’t know’ response, it may be that the survey was completed by an individual separate to the data sharing process.
•Poor data quality and/or accuracy at any point across the telecare supply chain (e.g. council, alarm receiving centre, communication provider) may lead to error in the matching process
With these caveats in mind, it still remains important to encourage widespread data sharing between telecare providers and communication providers. As the PSTN migration continues, telecare users without a matched provider face the greatest risk of unmanaged migration, particularly in areas where councils have not yet completed their transition to fully digital telecare alarm services. Strengthening both data sharing and data matching processes is therefore essential to ensure the safe continuation of telecare services through the digital switchover
To reiterate, of all responding councils with responsibility for telecare (N = 64), roughly a third (31.3 per cent / 20 councils) had opted to change their telecare supplier / provider.
Nevertheless, half of this larger group (50.0 per cent / 32 councils) had experienced some form of delay due to the readiness of their supplier / provider. The extent of the delay did vary within this group between ‘substantial delays’ (14.1 per cent / nine councils), ‘moderate delays’ (14.1 per cent / nine councils) and ‘some delays’ (21.9 per cent / 14 councils). Equally true, however, is that half of responding councils (50.0 per cent / 32 councils) had experienced ‘no delays’ due to their supplier / provider.
This distribution suggests that while many suppliers / providers were prepared for the switchover, a significant proportion of councils encountered challenges that hindered their progress. The relatively even split between substantial and moderate delays reinforces these inconsistencies in supplier / provider readiness, with some councils facing more acute barriers than others.
Of those councils that provided their views on telecare supplier / provider engagement with the council, the vast majority (90.6 per cent / 58 councils) reported high levels of engagement with their telecare supplier / provider, either engaging ‘fully’ (60.9 per cent / 39 councils) or ‘mostly’ (29.7 per cent / 19 councils). The remaining responding councils reported either ‘some’ (4.7 per cent / three councils), ‘none’ (1.6 per cent / one council) or ‘unable to say’ (3.1 per cent / two councils) regarding their engagement with their telecare supplier / provider.
As highlighted above, experiences with telecare suppliers / providers have varied between councils, and whilst positive overall, a minority of councils may have received uneven support and / or responsiveness. This may have had an impact on councils’ ability to respond to the digital switchover effectively.
A key priority for councils is to have a fully digital telecare alarm service as soon as possible, ahead of the January 2027 switchover deadline.
When asked as to the proportion of installed alarms that were capable of operating digitally (N = 63), roughly a quarter of councils had a telecare alarm service that was fully digital (25.4 per cent / 16 councils), whilst the bulk of responses noted that more than half of their telecare alarms were digitally capable (54.0 per cent / 34 councils). Finally, 17.5 per cent (11 councils) had less than half of their alarms being digitally capable with the remainder (3.2 per cent / two councils) noting that none of their deployed alarms were capable of operating digitally. Whilst these results suggest that overall, the majority of responding councils are progressing steadily with their digital upgrades, there remains a large subset of councils (20.7 per cent / 13 councils) with less than half or none of their deployed alarms as digitally capable. This represents a higher likelihood of large numbers of telecare recipients still relying on non-digital telecare which will not function post-migration, thus putting this group at risk of service cut-off. Councils in this position should 1) prioritise data sharing with communication providers to ensure a shared awareness of these individuals, and avoid their accidental migration, and 2) look to upgrade their analogue telecare equipment as soon as possible, ahead of the January 2027 deadline.
Positively, when asked for how long the use of analogue alarms will continue (N = 48) the vast majority (81.3 per cent / 39 councils) were in the process of upgrading their analogue alarms to digital as soon as possible, with a smaller number (6.3 per cent / three councils) continuing to use analogue alarms in the short-term. Whilst ‘other’ responses were a sizeable category (12.5 per cent / six councils), these free-text responses were mostly supplementary detail to an upgrade approach already underway. Nevertheless, a point was raised around the continued use of analogue units in not-spots, areas where poor mobile and/or broadband connectivity may make immediate digital deployment a challenge. Where progress towards a fully digital telecare alarm service has varied, it should be noted that some of this variation may be explained as a risk-management approach to local infrastructure constraints, as well as other more obvious challenges (e.g. financial constraints, futureproofing etc).
The transition from analogue to digital comes with the understanding that no network is infallible, and that the risk of connectivity loss will remain present. To minimise this risk, current advice recommends that commissioners procure devices that contain dual connectivity functionality, either in the form of dual-SIM connectivity (e.g. 2G / 4G) and/or direct Ethernet connection. This would provide devices with alternative methods of connection in the event of cellular connectivity loss and provide an extra layer of resilience for the chosen solution. As part of the survey, councils were asked as to the reliance of their digitally capable alarms on mobile connectivity. Of those surveyed (N = 63), the larger share (73.0 per cent / 46 councils) confirmed that some of their digital telecare alarms were reliant on mobile connectivity whilst the remainder did not (27.0 per cent / 17 councils). Whilst the use of SIM-based telecare devices is completely viable, it should be noted that the next major telecoms modernisation initiative, the retirement of the 2G network, is already underway, with VMO2 having started their 2G network withdrawal in October 2025.
Whilst the fact that 73.0 per cent (46 councils) of responding councils have digital devices that are reliant on mobile connectivity does not imply that they are solely reliant on the 2G network, it is likely that some will at least be partly reliant. Where possible, councils may wish to audit their digital offerings to understand the scale of the impact that the retirement of the 2G network may have on the resilience of their telecare service.
An ARC is a monitoring service that receives and acts upon alerts from alarm systems, including telecare. The transition of ARCs to becoming digitally capable has followed a similar trend to that of telecare alarms. Of those councils surveyed (N = 63) the majority (84.1 per cent / 53 councils) noted that their ARC is already capable of receiving calls from digital telecare alarms. A further 9.5 per cent (six councils) reported that their ARC did not have this capability, but that there were clear timescales in place for this capability to be achieved. Finally, 6.3 per cent (four councils) were unable to say. Broadly, these results highlight that ARCs have progressed steadily and are unlikely to act as a blocker to digital telecare provision. Having said that, there remains a minority of ARCs that do not yet have this capability, or where assurance may be lacking, which presents a residual risk to end‑to‑end service readiness.
Views on ARC engagement were similarly positive. When asked about levels of engagement with their ARC / call handling provider (N = 64), the majority of responding councils (67.8 per cent / 37 councils) reported that their ARC was fully engaged. An additional 18.8 per cent (12 councils) noted that their ARC engages with them most of the time, whilst 10.9 per cent (seven councils) reported engagement occurring some of the time. Just 1.6 per cent (one council) of respondents stated that their ARC does not engage with them at all, with a further 10.9 per cent (seven councils) unable to say. Risk here is concentrated in the minority reporting inconsistent engagement (‘some’: 10.9 per cent / seven councils & ‘none’: 1.6 per cent / one council) and those unable to describe engagement levels (10.9 per cent / seven councils). These groups may be more likely to experience coordination failures (e.g. unclear testing arrangements, slower resolution of issues) at precisely the time in which end-to-end assurance is most crucial.
Data sharing between councils and communications providers has been a key enabling mechanism in supporting the safe transition from analogue to digital telecare during the PSTN migration. Its primary purpose has been to identify telecare users to communication providers, avoiding service disruption and ensuring the necessary protection measures can be put in place. Effective data sharing reduces the reliance on vulnerable individuals to self‑identify their needs and supports councils in meeting safeguarding and continuity responsibilities. The extent to which data sharing arrangements are in place, operational, and actively used may therefore provide an indicator of local readiness and assurance for digital telecare provision.
The extent to which data sharing has progressed varies between different communication providers, this variation is detailed as follows:
Provider A (N = 62)
Data has been shared (67.7 per cent / 42 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (4.8 per cent / three councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (8.1 per cent / five councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (19.4 per cent / 12 councils)
Provider B (N = 60)
Data has been shared (60.0 per cent / 36 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (13.3 per cent / eight councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (6.7 per cent / four councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (20 per cent / 12 councils)
Provider C (N = 46)
Data has been shared (34.8 per cent / 16 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (6.5 per cent / three councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (15.2 per cent / seven councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (43.5 per cent / 20 councils)
Provider D (N = 54)
Data has been shared (38.9 per cent / 21 councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (7.4 per cent / four councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (11.1 per cent / six councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (42.6 per cent / 23 councils)
Provider E (N = 47)
Data has been shared (14.9 per cent / seven councils)
Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) signed, but no data shared to date (6.4 per cent / three councils)
Development of a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) in progress (14.9 per cent / seven councils)
No Data Sharing Agreement in place (63.8 per cent / 30 councils)
Data sharing between councils and communication providers is a critical safeguard during the transition from analogue to digital telecare. Its purpose is to ensure that providers can accurately identify telecare users and put in place the protections required to prevent service disruption during migration. This mechanism reduces reliance on vulnerable individuals to self‑identify and supports councils in meeting their safeguarding responsibilities.
However, national progress remains highly uneven. While some communication providers have engaged constructively, with many councils having already shared data or signed Data Sharing Agreements (DSAs), others have shown significantly lower levels of engagement. In some cases, more than 40 per cent of responding councils report having no DSA in place with specific providers, highlighting substantial gaps in coverage. These disparities create a fragmented risk landscape in which risk to individual telecare users may vary depending on their specific communication provider.
The causes of this variation extend beyond local factors. Differences in provider operating models, provider engagement and the complexity of negotiating the signing of multiple data sharing agreements (DSAs) all contribute to an uneven identification of vulnerable telecare users. Providers with well‑developed engagement programmes show substantially stronger progress than those without. Additionally, emerging evidence also indicates that, even after data sharing with major providers, many councils still have significant proportions of telecare users without an identified communication provider.
The implications of these gaps are significant. Where data has not been shared, communication providers may be unaware of telecare users on their networks and could migrate them without the necessary checks, engineering support or resilience measures. This not only increases the risk of service failure but also places a disproportionate operational burden on councils, which must chase multiple providers or compensate for unclear points of contact and inconsistent engagement.
As the digital switchover accelerates into its final year, achieving consistent, high‑quality data sharing across all major communication providers is essential. Closing the current variation is critical to ensuring a safe, coordinated migration and preventing avoidable risks to telecare users.
The challenge associated with data sharing is exacerbated by an emerging concern that, despite data sharing with the major communication providers, there remain large proportions of telecare numbers without an identified communication provider.
Whilst it is true that a council completing its migration to a fully digital telecare alarm service is the best mitigation of risk; for those who have not yet been able to achieve this, there is risk that a person in receipt of telecare, without an identified communication provider, could be migrated unbeknownst to both the communication provider and the council. In this case, the analogue telecare device could fail to work in the event of an emergency, presenting real risk to vulnerable people.
When asked regarding the extent to which data sharing activity had sufficiently covered their telecare users (N = 42), the following responses were received:
Two thirds or more of our telecare customers have a matched communication provider (28.6 per cent / 12 councils)
Between a third and two thirds of our telecare customers have a matched communication provider (23.8 per cent / 10 councils)
Less than a third of our telecare customers have a matched communication provider (2.4 per cent / one council)
Don’t know (45.2 per cent / 19 councils)
As highlighted above only 28.6 per cent of councils (12 councils) reported that two‑thirds or more of users were successfully matched. A further 23.8 per cent (10 councils) indicated that between one‑third and two‑thirds of users had been matched, suggesting partial but incomplete coverage. Just 2.4 per cent (one council) reported that less than one‑third of their telecare users had a matched provider, indicating that pockets of very low customer-provider matching do exist. The most striking finding, however, is that 45.2 per cent of councils (19 councils) responded “don’t know”, which may signal limited insight into data sharing coverage at the local level.
Despite this, we should consider a number of key caveats:
The query does not capture the extent of council data sharing across multiple providers. Some of this data sharing gap may be explained by a lack of data sharing with all PSTN charter communication providers.
Among those councils who selected the ‘don’t know’ response, it may be that the survey was completed by an individual separate to the data sharing process.
With these caveats in mind, it still remains true that the data sharing challenge may extend beyond simply signing DSAs and sharing data. Even among councils that have shared data, many are still unable to confirm whether the majority of their telecare users have been identified to communication providers. This uncertainty is compounded by the high volume of unmatched numbers and the large proportion of councils without visibility of their matching rates. As the PSTN migration continues, telecare users without a matched provider face the greatest risk of unmanaged migration, particularly in areas where councils have not yet completed their transition to fully digital telecare alarm services. Strengthening both data sharing and data matching processes is therefore essential to ensure the safe continuation of telecare services through the digital switchover.
More publications about Social care, health and integration
