Despite the Federated Data Platform being an NHS England priority for years, it still feels like a solution in search of a problem. Not because the NHS is short on problems – if only – but because the FDP is being positioned as a panacea for all woes without any real explanation on how it will deliver on that promise. McKinsey’s thought piece, Unleashing the potential of the NHS Federated Data Platform, breathlessly imagined it saving £15-20 billion a year, solving interoperability, and enabling at-scale AI to transform care and decision making. NHS England’s own uptake statistics, although not quite as dramatic, still feel disconnected from what’s happening on the ground. And yet – whisper it – those who’ve started using the platform seem to like it. Even if they’re still not entirely sure what it actually is.
Key takeaway: Clear articulation of FDP’s purpose is essential to gain stakeholder trust and drive adoption.
This tension between ambition and ambiguity was a recurring theme at this year’s Digital Health Summer Schools event, where the FDP was featured in several sessions, including CereCore International’s, ‘The 10-Year Plan, My EPR, and Me’, chaired by Sir David Sloman and joined by a panel of distinguished NHS leaders, including Ming Tang, who shared her thoughts on the future direction of NHS data.
How did we get where we are?
The desire to harmonise NHS data isn’t new: it’s been a longstanding ambition, stretching back well before the pandemic. But Covid provided the catalyst. In the scramble to manage national logistics, Palantir’s Foundry platform emerged as the de facto solution, quickly becoming the prototype for what would later be branded as the FDP. While the lack of transparency around Foundry’s pandemic-era adoption might be understandable, the award of the £330 million main contract has been dogged by controversy – from Palantir’s less-than-pristine reputation and its increasingly outspoken CEO, to the eye-watering price tag (likely exceeding £1 billion) and the murky tender process itself. At last year’s NHS Confed, the FDP session was interrupted no fewer than four times by protestors, its exhibition space had visibly increased security, and members reportedly questioned the appropriateness of giving Palantir such a prominent platform. For something as ostensibly dry as an infrastructure project, it’s almost impressive how much controversy NHS England has managed to generate.
And despite all the noise, we’re still not much closer to understanding what the Federated Data Platform actually is or will be. This hasn’t been helped by government messaging: both the Darzi Report and the 10-Year Plan talk up the transformative potential of health data but fall short of offering any real detail. Meanwhile, the uncertainty around NHS England’s future, coupled with the abolition of Commissioning Support Units, arguably a natural home for federated data use, has only muddied the waters further. Some trusts, such as those in Manchester, have flatly stated that they aren’t interested in using the FDP until there’s a clearer use case, and that it exceeds what they’re able to do in house.
What’s the word on the ground?
Despite this less-than-auspicious start, uptake of, and interest in, the FDP has been real. That enthusiasm may say more about the NHS’s desperate need for anything that makes managing data easier than it does about the platform’s inherent merits. Trusts are being strongly encouraged to adopt it, often with little budget to invest in their own alternatives. Feedback from early users has been cautiously positive, especially around ease-of-use for features like messaging and workload management. But these feel more like EPR-style conveniences than the hallmarks of a data platform.
The initial data models proposed for the FDP are undeniably ambitious, and if realised, could unlock meaningful insights and operational efficiencies. But the main problem is getting the data there. Even Palantir has publicly called for EPR systems to become more FDP-interoperable, highlighting the current disconnect. Without a clear pathway for integration, there’s a real risk the FDP becomes just another repository; one more platform hospitals are expected to pump data into, joining the ranks of SUS and the Strategic Data Collection Service, with little clarity on the outputs.
Alongside the uncertainty over purpose and procurement, governance concerns continue to loom large. The FDP’s use of patient data - particularly in the context of AI-enabled decision-making - raises unresolved questions about accountability, consent, and oversight.
Who is responsible when algorithmic tools influence clinical pathways? What safeguards exist to ensure transparency and explainability? NHS England has promised a shop of tools - a plug-and-play ecosystem where third-party applications can draw on FDP data to generate insights - but it’s unclear how these tools will be vetted, regulated, or integrated into clinical workflows, or even when these features will become available. Without a clear governance framework, the risk is that innovation outpaces accountability, leaving frontline teams unsure where responsibility lies when things go wrong.
These thoughts were echoed widely during the Digital Health Summer Schools event, and also came through in our own panel session, where we had the pleasure of welcoming Ming Tang to share her perspective. The tone was familiar: even Ming Tang had as many questions as answers. But there was a clear acknowledgement of the need for change - particularly around governance structures and ensuring value for money. It was a moment of honesty that reflected the broader mood: cautious optimism, tempered by a recognition that the FDP’s success will depend not just on technology, but on trust, clarity, and meaningful engagement with those expected to use it.
What’s next?
Whatever shape the Federated Data Platform ultimately takes, it’s unlikely to disappear, and nor is the need for better data infrastructure across the NHS. Whether your Trust is fully engaged, cautiously exploring, or still weighing its options, the FDP can still be a starting point: not necessarily a solution in itself, but a framework for thinking differently about how data is structured, governed, and used.
What became clear from our panel session during the Digital Health Summer Schools event was that the conversation is shifting - not toward certainty, but toward acknowledging the need for clearer plans, stronger governance, and tangible value. Sir David Sloman’s reminder that “specific plans lead to specific outcomes” is especially relevant. The FDP may not yet be the finished article, but it can still prompt useful questions, and help trusts take practical steps toward improving their data landscape.
If you want to make sense of where your organisation fits into this evolving picture, or develop a practical roadmap tailored to your needs, we’re here to help.
