Member Info for Vascular

Evening all.

I see from the historic graph that SBDS has never actually achieved profitability but I notice between 4th Sept 23 and 28th Feb 24 the sp rose from approx 40p to approx £1,90 p. Can anyone explain the reason/s why this rise at that specific time.

Thanks Vas

Nice find gizmo

https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/devices/big-global-investors-local-cos-eye-intellismart-as-smart-meter-push-gains-pace-in-india/129992610

There are many names mooted as interested in buying IntelliSmart including

“ Infrastructure Funds & Private Equity Firms: Global funds seeking long-term investments in India's power and digital infrastructure sectors, such as GIC (Singapore), Actis, and I Squared Capital, are mentioned as key players active in this space.”

Made me think about whether Esyasoft owners IHC would be interested ! along with today’s situation of Esyasoft taking on CC, possibly. Just a thought really. Stab in the dark. That’s all we have really

From the distance of just a pi and observer the fact that Significant changes are being RNSd such as the exiting of the present CFO, and the arrival of a new CFO linked to Redmile with talk of Nasdaq listing etc, suggests that some descion/ s have already now been made and are presently being acted on.i.e events are now moving along…

Morning LT,

I agree, I would also prefer some kind of investment from Intellismart that allowed cC to continue trading in India and ROW, and keep us in the game.

You might wish to read link below that goes into details of some financing issues IntelliSmart are /were having in ASSam in Jan 26. Gl vas

https://www.indiaratings.co.in/pressrelease/81174

The bad news

“ NHS England will not allow new technology investment until clear national executive leadership is in place, it said this morning.” 26 March 2026

https://www.hsj.co.uk/technology-and-innovation/leadership-void-is-blocking-tech-investment-says-nhse/7041379.article#:~:text=NHS%20England%20will%20not%20allow,place%2C%20it%20said%20this%20morning.

The good news

“ 30 March 2026

A new national chief digital, data and technology officer has been appointed.”

https://www.hsj.co.uk/technology-and-innovation/home-office-director-to-lead-nhs-tech/7041402.article#:~:text=It%20comes%20after%20the%20government,more%20funding%20without%20clearer%20leadership.

Thanks Branacle.

When I read these reports I always find it an amazing coincidence that a bunch of administrators / politicians et in government / in the nhs come up with a very specific 25% target in outpatient

appointments ….

“ NHS England has set a target for 25% of outpatient activity in ten specialties to be diverted away from traditional hospital-based clinics by March 2027”

And long before this, and again last year during the Neighbourhood Health simulations Bleepa, PPL etc came up with an exactly same 25 % saving made in using Bleepa during neighbourhood health simulation’s !

I wonder who came up with the number 25/% first, and feel strongly it was most likely FDBK using Bleepa and has been used as an example ever since. Can anyone find examples of other company’s / services advertising a 25% reduction in outpatient activity in the modern neighbourhood health arena. Gl vas

Reports of delays in national funding for certain services such as pharmacy being reported, so still small chance the National business case for Bleepa is still being considered.

And on the point of today being day one in the nhs new financial year with new monies being announced going into 26/ 27 possibly 28 . I don’t think it matters too much if any National funding is announced on 1st April or a few days earlier or later …the point is that the national funding still exists and will be funding future services….gl vas

Surely, if I understand correctly what gizmo is posting then Niif or Intellismart etc could easily make a bid now, and buy CC outright and bring the CCs solution in house for use across India ….this would secure India’s problem.

The trouble is that in just less than six months they achieved sales of 177 units, selling form what appears a 40% discount ....

(generating £12,400 in revenue (£20,300 in revenue at full RRP before discounts and offers).

And this was global sales !!

With influencers on commission , who only get paid if they sell

What took the BODs so long to realise there was a problem!!!

If i was running the business and had access to the sales numbers ..... red light once only 75 units sold at 3 month in!! and again this last 3 months , no improvement.

Why so long to get a distribution deal, its very much a every day thing in business and what happened to the celebrity endorsements, etc etc all rubbish imo

no short term fund raise presently ! which means there will be one a week after whatever short term implies....May? June? and probably a week after th enext RNS which will be some deal or whatever that may or may not happen, and if it does may sell another unit a day lol

If I get any oats at all it is usually on the bed, on the wife, and done manualy. No foods added, to messy.

The Sunday Roast gang were very bullish regarding iNC, so will be very interested in their response which should be scathing and recommend investors to get out …but as a paid service …be interesting to see what they say about this car crash.

It seems that they have managed to sell less than one unit a day since August 25 when the “ Global “ S&C online shop went live. They make themselves look like fools in this RNS by stating such a low sales number but imo they are not, they can sell, they have shown in the past they specialise in selling to small private investors …..with over promising story’s ….i

Quote from December 25 RNS

“ however, since launch, we have seen steady increases month on month, in traction across social media, hits to our website and conversion to sales.”

If they are selling just 6 ( discounted)

units per week now, what numbers were they selling then!

Taking seven months to admit that they have got everything wrong here is not an accident, just do not understand why they have chosen to continue this waste of time and money strategy.

It does make me question everything else we have been told from day one .

We know that NHS England are using QVH as a digital blueprint that If successful could be part of, and contribute to the overall national nhs digital model . We also know that FDBK partnership with QVH is being funded by NHS England, again possibly part of a blueprint and that using specifically Bleepa they are connecting more pathways going forward..

We also know that recently FDBK have announced that Bleepa “ connects with NHS Electronic Patient Records (EPR) through their platform, Bleepa®, enabling seamless integration, single sign-on access, and secure sharing of medical images/clinical data within existing hospital workflows. It provides a "launch link" from the EPR to facilitate asynchronous communication and Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) collaboration, improving speed of patient care”

So bearing this in mind here is a post from QVH minor injuries

Queen Victoria Hospital paves the digital way for treating patients in Minor Injuries

Friday 6th March 2026

https://www.qvh.nhs.uk/2026/03/queen-victoria-hospital-paves-the-digital-way-for-treating-patients-in-minor-injuries/

A further contract from QVH for existing and more pathways would be appreciated.

Yes, i agree. It’s very difficult to see what’s happening from our viewpoint.

I am same as you trying to keep up to date with what’s happening .

I seem to remember our partner Moorehouse consulting being in a prime position to provide contracts to FDBK.

I am hoping that with the new buying powers of the reduced number of enlarged ICSs begins in the new financial year …..Ton, stated something like …there are services willing and waiting to purchase Bleepa..just need the financial taps to be switched on…or something like this….so in the next few weeks/ month I truly expect more than one new award to be made to FDBK . All based on Toms presentation and what’s in RNSs…gl vas

P.s health beats wealth every time.

Morning Rebarm.

I do not recall seeing confirmation specifically anywhere that a digital solution has been agreed, it may have -but if you have the reference to this I would love to read it.

There is so much seemingly going on and several potential streams of finance that FDBK could receive such as ( taken from ( Feb 26 RNS)

The proposed “National business case” mentioned late last year, which in Feb 26 presentation stated

“ A national business case for Bleepa was submitted as part of the Spending Review in the Spring - outcome pending”. This is still outstanding as far as I know.

Also

Funding via “ Strategic partnerships in late stage discussion ahead of at scale roll out including consulting firms for implementation, cloud providers and technology partners with supporting propositions”.

I would like to think there are several more of these..

Plus funding via the new enlarged ICSs “ Regional Procurement: Preparing for significant NHS purchasing opportunities expected from April 2026.”

This is the most likely over next few weeks imo and may be reason for recent buys…who knows …success's with the National business case would be fantastic but probably less likely…

Who’s going to digitally connect the recently announced 25 neighbourhood Health Centres .we know FDBK is involved in NH , maybe the funding for the digitalisation of these venues is coming from another pot!

Easy to read the headlines more Difficult to see where the funding is coming from and if it covers both the capital spend in creating these buildings and also the digital support required. GL vas

Cont

To involve communities and the workforce meaningfully, engagement should focus on identifying the types of in-person services residents need close to home, rather than on the design of large, centralised facilities. For example, communities can provide insight into where diagnostic capacity, pharmacy-based interventions, or district nursing bases would be most accessible. The workforce, in turn, can identify the specific estate features required for safe in-person delivery, while recognising that most collaborative and decision-making activity will take place digitally. This approach ensures that engagement efforts remain aligned with the operational reality of a digitally enabled Neighbourhood Health Service, rather than reinforcing outdated assumptions about co-location.

The introduction of this digital infrastructure, detaching geographic restrictions from local care expertise, will aid in tackling geographic and income inequality by genuinely bringing the best of the NHS to the rest, with expertise from any location able to be drawn on to impact areas most in need.

Meeting the needs of different communities (including rural and coastal)

The estate must be designed to reflect the differing geographies and demographics of communities across England. We believe that the most effective way to achieve this is by operating the Neighbourhood Health Service as a holistic service enabled through a digital collaboration platform, with in-person care, only where required, taking place locally to the resident. Under this model, care would be delivered closer to the home and would allow more care to be provided in the home, where appropriate.

This approach directly benefits rural, coastal and remote communities, where traditional estate models struggle due to geography, population density and travel limitations. By removing the dependency on physical co-location:

Expertise can be delivered remotely from anywhere, reducing the need for specialist capacity to be physically located in rural or coastal areas.

• Estate requirements can be scaled down to the minimum physical footprint necessary for essential in-person care.

• Community-based buildings, such as pharmacies, GP practices or local authority venues, can serve as flexible touchpoints, avoiding the need for new construction.

This ensures that residents in rural and coastal areas receive an equivalent level of access to multi-disciplinary expertise as those in urban settings, without requiring large or expensive estates.

Hope this travels well. Gl. Vas

Cont

Question 4 and 4a

There is considerable opportunity to use non‑NHS settings and infrastructure to support the delivery of the Neighbourhood Health Service, provided that the model is underpinned by an effective digital platform that removes the requirement for teams to be physically co‑located. Prime examples of suitable settings which regularly contain excess capacity include GP surgeries, community pharmacies, and local authority–owned buildings. Unlocking this space depends on enabling neighbourhood teams to collaborate virtually, with clinical information shared digitally and securely rather than through physical co‑presence.

With a platform such as Bleepa, neighbourhood teams can work as a single, digitally connected workforce, with in-person care only occurring where clinically necessary. This enables a far more flexible estate model in which non-NHS settings can serve three complementary functions:

Distributed bases for neighbourhood teams

Non-NHS sites with spare capacity, such as pharmacies or civic buildings, can host elements of the Neighbourhood Health Service workforce without requiring full clinical infrastructure. The digital platform provides the unified patient view, secure zero-footprint image sharing, and integrated referrals required for safe collaboration, enabling staff to operate effectively across locations.

Accessible community touchpoints

Local authority buildings and community venues can act as local access points for residents, supporting preventative health, care navigation, and simple interventions. Their location within communities helps ensure neighbourhood care is delivered as close to residents as possible, when this is necessary.

Extensions of a national, digitally enabled workforce model

Because digital collaboration removes geographic constraints, non-NHS sites do not need to house full multi-disciplinary teams. Instead, they function as local bases for in-person activity while clinical expertise is drawn in remotely from anywhere within the system. This significantly reduces the need for new estate and avoids duplicating capacity.

Question 5 and 5a

Local communities and the health and care workforce should both play a critical role in shaping an estate model that can support the Neighbourhood Health Service. However, involvement must be grounded in a clear understanding of how the Neighbourhood Health Service will operate. The effectiveness of neighbourhood care depends far more on digital collaboration than on the creation or redesign of large physical spaces. This principle should guide both engagement and estate design.

Cont

By prioritising digital infrastructure and focusing physical investment on spaces that provide direct clinical value, the NHS can reduce capital expenditure, minimise inefficiencies, and ensure residents receive the right care, in the right setting, at the right time.

Question 3

Feedback Medical has acted as the technology supplier for two Neighbourhood Health Service simulations across London and Manchester, delivered in collaboration with NHS Providers, PPL and Optum. These simulations have provided clear insights into how neighbourhood‑level care can be delivered effectively, and importantly, what this means for future estate requirements.

A consistent lesson emerging from both simulations is that digital collaboration is a foundational enabler of effective neighbourhood care, and far more impactful than physical co‑location. Participants repeatedly emphasised that the ability to communicate openly, share information instantly and work as a unified team, regardless of physical setting, was essential to delivering efficient, resident‑centred care. As one frontline professional summarised:

“Open communication and equal value between all contributors to the neighbourhood team is essential to provide an efficient and caring service…”

This reinforces that investment in digital infrastructure, rather than new estate, should be the primary lever for enabling joined-up working.

In these simulations, teams were often situated within just metres of each other in a corridor. Despite the ability to physically move between rooms with ease, many teams embraced the ability to collaborate digitally via Bleepa and cited that co-location was less important overall due to the technical infrastructure available.

The simulations also demonstrated that collaboration improves when geographic constraints are removed, enabling a broader range of professionals to participate meaningfully in resident care. In both simulations, teams valued the ability to draw on expertise beyond their local footprint, fostering a level of collaboration that would not be feasible through physical co-location alone. As one participant reflected:

“Throughout, there was a genuine desire to collaborate and that needs to be harnessed.”

For estate planning, these findings point to a clear conclusion:

Neighbourhood Health estates do not require large, centralised physical spaces to function effectively. Instead, the NHS estate should be designed to support a digitally enabled, distributed workforce model, where in‑person care is delivered locally but collaboration occurs remotely.

Cont.

approach to the Neighbourhood Health Service would present the opportunities to better utilise existing NHS and non-NHS estates, or limit the requirement for new physical infrastructure.

For example, there is excess capacity in many primary and community settings, including GPs, pharmacies and local government-owned buildings, which is currently underutilised but would be unlocked by embracing a digital tool to underpin the Neighbourhood Health Service.

With the correct digital underpinning, teams will be able to collaborate via an online platform more effectively than with current working models and with no limitations on location.

Question 2 and 2b

In assessing criteria to prioritise investment in the NHS estate, it is essential to begin with a clear understanding of the operating model required for an effective Neighbourhood Health Service. The fundamental principle underpinning investment decisions should be that physical co-location is not a mandatory requirement for high-quality neighbourhood care. With the right digital infrastructure in place, multi-disciplinary teams can collaborate remotely, share a unified patient record, and contribute clinical expertise without relying on shared physical environments.

Investment criteria should therefore prioritise:

1. Digital readiness as the first enabling condition

Any capital investment in physical estate should be contingent on ensuring that neighbourhood teams have access to a comprehensive, regulated digital platform capable of supporting asynchronous collaboration, integrated referrals, and medical device-certified image sharing across NHS and non‑NHS providers, regardless of physical location. This ensures that the estate is used efficiently and that clinical collaboration is not constrained by geography.

2. Optimisation of existing estate before commissioning new infrastructure

Where digital tools remove the dependency on co-location, opportunities emerge to make better use of capacity already available across the system. Estate investment should prioritise upgrades that support neighbourhood teams operating flexibly across GP practices, community pharmacies, local authority buildings and other public sector settings, rather than defaulting to the construction of new facilities.

3. Prioritisation of estate that supports in-person care only where clinically necessary

Neighbourhood Health teams will continue to require spaces for direct resident care, diagnostics and services that cannot be delivered remotely. Investment should therefore target estates that enable streamlined local access, such as community diagnostic centres or district nursing hubs, while avoiding the duplication of administrative or collaborative spaces that can be delivered digitally.

Taken together, these criteria ensure that investment in the NHS estate supports, not constrains, the delivery of a modern Neighbourhood Health Service. By prioritising digital infrastructure and focusing physical invest

Cont

analogue over digital.

Under our model, clinicians and community support can contribute to care in a way that is best for residents, not bound by location or analogue working models. In some cases, this would remove the need for additional estate spending in the first place.

Feedback Medical has been a technology supplier for two neighbourhood healthcare service simulations across London and a national simulation in Manchester, delivered in collaboration with NHS Providers, PPL and Optum. In these simulations, participants found the instant access to patient records, the ability to collaborate via an auditable chat-based patient log and asynchronous patient care to be an invaluable aspect of the working environment. With Bleepa as the underlying collaboration technology, these simulations found consistent improvements in the care journey, with fewer appointments and admissions, health improvements across population segments and residents feeling that the standards of care they received were better.

We are submitting a response to this call for evidence as we believe that securing the correct digital underpinning to the delivery of the Neighbourhood Health Service will be key to ensuring residents have access to the correct level of care, locally to them, while limiting capital expenditure on brick and mortar infrastructure. From our experience with running neighbourhood healthcare simulations, .we also

see th this working model benefits staff, who have access to greater collaboration and flexibility in their work

In this response, we will be addressing questions 1, 1(a), 1(c), 2, 2(b), 3, 4, 4(a), 5, and 5(a).

To complement this response, we would also like to share a whitepaper published in December 2025, Neighbourhood health now: The digital roadmap for delivering neighbourhood services today, in which we set out a vision for the delivery of neighbourhood healthcare using the technologies already in use by the NHS.

Questions 1, 1a and 1c

The amount of physical estate required to deliver the Neighbourhood Health Service is heavily dependent on the method of delivery of the service. Several options have been proposed, and the obvious solution for many organisations may be to embrace simple co-location to improve cross-provider and cross-team collaboration.

While there is evidence that co-location can improve collaboration and putting services under one roof may bring some benefits to residents, the efficiencies that can be gained are severely limited. The scope of neighbourhood healthcare as a whole is too large to simply rely on co-location, and doing so would favour patients in areas with a higher population density. Data sharing would remain bottlenecked by the limitations of existing technology, and efficiency gains would be limited unnecessarily. In fact, doing so risks creating new additional siloes in the health and care sector, beyond those that are already well understood to exist within the NHS.

A digital-first