HM: How did the project come about and how did you choose your partners?
SR: This came from the growth mission rather than a health strategy.
Thames Freeport exists to bring £4.5bn of private investment and 21,000 jobs to Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock. To realise those benefits, we must raise productivity, widen access to employment and build a broader skills base. That is difficult if residents are not healthy enough to participate, making health central to the Freeport's mission.
Thames Freeport's contribution was to convene local authorities, the NHS and the voluntary sector, and fund a robust pilot.
An Avencera-led consortium, supported by PUBLIC and L Marks, designed and delivered the programme, including the health needs analysis, service design, workforce and operations.
Clinical delivery was provided through Community Pharmacy North East London and Community Pharmacy Essex. Redbridge Council leased the vehicle, while PocDoc supplied point-of-care testing, Esri UK and FourthSpace provided targeting, and Jeenie delivered live interpretation.
HM: Who led the project?
SR: I have led Thames Freeport's health and social care programmes since 2022 and sponsored this project.
This reflects Thames Freeport's wider approach: convene partners, fund and test new models, ensure independent evaluation and scale what works without owning assets or employing frontline staff.
HM: What were the project's short term and long term aims? Which of these were met?
SR: We set out to prove that a clinically governed mobile service could operate safely, attract residents, use technology to improve targeting and diagnostics, demonstrate commercial potential and be evaluated robustly.
Over eight weeks, 687 people were screened, and the service was at or near capacity on more than 60% of days. All days were rated good or very good for testing quality and follow-on advice.
Cost per patient fell from £119 in week one to £41 across the final two operating days as utilisation increased. The evaluation estimated a return of 1.83 times the pilot investment and 67% of users said they would be willing to pay for the service. The business case identified multiple revenue streams, but securing long-term commissioning remains the next challenge.
HM: What were the criteria for the locations and how were they selected through AI analysis?
SR: Three factors shaped site selection: health need, reach and practicality. Need was assessed using diabetes and hypertension prevalence, deprivation and areas where primary care capacity has not kept pace with housing growth. Reach was based on predicted footfall, while practicality covered vehicle access, visibility, wheelchair access and a host organisation.
Esri UK mapped population risk and deprivation, while FourthSpace used IoT sensing and geospatial analytics to predict footfall by location and time of day. This enabled deployments to reach the most people.
The results were evident in the footfall: 96% of operating days were rated good or very good, with around 164 people passing the bus each day.
HM: What community and faith organisations were engaged in local areas?
SR: A wide range of partners contributed to the pilot's success. Faith organisations included Barking Mosque, Collier Row Mosque and Gurdwara Singh Sabha London East. Community partners included Kingsley Hall, MyPlace, HASWA, Bower Park Centre and Leisure United Parsloes Park.
The team also worked with Healthwatch, resident associations, community champions, volunteer networks and major employers, including Ford, DP World, Forth Ports and CEME. More than 35 stakeholders were involved across health, community and delivery.
Some places of worship produced significant demographic skews in participation. While acceptable in a pilot, this remains a targeting challenge for any permanent service.
HM: How did the local community respond?
SR: Demand exceeded expectations. The bus screened 687 people and operated at or near capacity on more than 60% of days, despite winter conditions.
User feedback was strong: 99% found the service easy to access, 98% would recommend it, 95% described it as quick and efficient, and 94% felt more confident about improving their health.
Over two-thirds (67%) said they would be willing to pay for the service, indicating strong perceived value.
HM: How was the population engaged to take part on the day?
SR: Promotion relied primarily on partner networks. Community organisations promoted it through trusted local channels, supported by targeted digital outreach. Thames Freeport provided the information, but community partners generated most of the reach.
High-footfall locations, clear branding and visible queues attracted passers-by, and walk-ins ran alongside pre-booked appointments.
HM: How were the NHS cost savings quantified?
SR: The £192,928 is an estimate of NHS cost avoided, produced by the independent evaluation of the pilot.
It sits within the evaluation's value for money assessment and is attributed to downstream avoidance: cost the health system is likely not to incur because cardiovascular and metabolic risk was identified earlier than it otherwise would have been. Set against a pilot investment of £105,400, the evaluation puts the return at 1.83 times.
This is a modelled estimate rather than a saving that has been banked. Longer-term impacts require further validation and an eight-week pilot cannot show what then happened to patients over the years that follow and we do not claim that it does.
HM: Have you shared the findings with NHS partners? What has been their response?
SR: Yes. North East London ICB, Mid and South Essex ICB, public health teams across all three authorities, primary care networks and TogetherFirst CIC were involved from the health needs analysis onwards. Evaluation findings have been shared through those networks and a summary is available, with the full report available from the evaluation partners.
The responses has been positive. Partners recognise the model's relevance to prevention, unmet need and access, particularly for difficult to reach populations.
The question is now who funds and governs it, and how it integrates with existing services.
HM: How can the programme be scaled and integrated into neighbourhood health pathways?
SR: The clinical and testing models are already scalable, but deployment and transport arrangements would need redesign.
Thames Freeport funded the pilot to test the model, not operate it permanently. Community pharmacy appears the most viable long-term route, supported by commissioning, occupational health, technology partnerships, sponsorship and demonstrator income.
HM: What plans are there for future projects?
SR: Routes to scale are being explored, with the aim of moving from a Freeport-funded pilot to a sustainable model.
Multi-year funding has been secured to expand the approach through more screening, more locations, stronger targeting and delivery.
The bus sits alongside our Health AI programme, a regional data-readiness assessment and CarePort, which is deploying remote assessment technology to support up to 2,000 care recipients. Together, they link prevention, primary care and complex care.
Additional use cases are being explored, including respiratory, women's, mental and occupational health. Workplace delivery showed particular promise.
The goal throughout is the same: identify barriers facing residents, test whether technology can address them affordably and create sustainable markets around successful solutions.
