Two years, three organisations, independently evaluated
The most thorough evaluation of CardMedic so far. Two years, three organisations – a large regional maternity and neonatal provider, a medium acute Trust and a community service – evaluated by the Integrated Care Board and published in February 2026.
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire LMNS
-
88%
Of surveyed staff were aware of it, and 86% of those registered
Staff survey, n=88, across the three organisations
-
81%
Of those who used it rated it extremely or somewhat useful
Of the 48% who had used it in practice
-
10,300+
Supported communication interactions recorded
Prepared content, Live Translate and BSL across the pilot
-
Rising
Professional interpreter use, month on month after launch
Interpreter access went up, not down
Why the evaluation was commissioned
The ICB wanted evidence to support a commissioning decision, not a testimonial. It set out to assess awareness, registration and real usage, perceived usefulness, technical and practical barriers, and where further support was needed – including what would happen if the platform were not commissioned. The evaluation combined a staff survey (n=88), in-depth interviews with four super-users, and platform analytics.
What the analytics recorded
Over the pilot: 5,800 prepared card interactions, 4,489 Live Translate activities and 75 British Sign Language interactions – more than 10,300 supported conversations that previously had no governed communication support at all. The largest site ran at 300 to 700 card interactions a month, rising over the period. The smaller acute Trust grew fastest. The community service used it least, which matches its deliberately narrow rollout.
What the interpreter call data showed
Staff reach their own telephone and video interpreting service directly, with the access and language codes already in place. No hunting for a ward mobile, no external number, no PIN. Staff called it much faster than the old booking route. The important finding is the direction: once interpreters became easier to reach, calls and total interpreter time rose every month. This is a route to professional interpreting, not a replacement for it – and this is the evidence.
What went wrong, and why it matters
The evaluation is candid about the problems, and we would rather publish them than not. Wi-Fi restrictions at the largest site stopped iPads placing calls at all until December 2025, which suppressed usage there for three months. Staff also reported slow loading, occasional crashes, occasional inaccuracies in live chat translation, and missing high-demand languages including Tigrinya, Kurdish Sorani and Dari. A quarter of staff had received no training and most relied on colleagues. Where the technical and training conditions were fixed, usage rose sharply – which is the honest finding: this works when it is implemented properly, and underperforms when it is not.
What the evaluation concluded
It found strong, consistent evidence of positive impact on communication quality, equity and workflow efficiency, with growing adoption where digital and training conditions were in place, and recommended continued commissioning. It also found that structured, hands-on engagement had a measurable effect on uptake – registration and usage rose after every on-the-floor session.
“Staff consistently reported increased confidence communicating with LEP women and families, improved ability to provide clear and timely explanations, greater efficiency during routine clinical interactions, and faster access to multilingual information.”
How to read this
The survey percentages describe 88 staff who responded across maternity, neonatal and community services in three organisations – not all staff, and not our whole customer base. Usefulness and confidence are staff-reported, not measured clinical outcomes. The usage totals are real platform data for this pilot only, and are deliberately not presented as our total activity. No cost saving is claimed, because none was measured.