Data chiefs have raised concerns that the Federated Data Platform (FDP) will not be able to meet the ‘bespoke’ requirements of local systems across the health service.
In an open letter to the chief data and analytics officer at NHS England, Ming Tang, the chair of the Chief Data and Analytical Officers Network, Marc Farr, said the bespoke requirements of local systems were best met through ‘locally designed and managed infrastructure’.
He said that the health needs of the population were met through a ‘combination of services both healthcare and non-healthcare related’, but that the FDP was an NHS solution for predominantly NHS data.
‘A nationally commissioned platform (FDP) will not be able to meet all the bespoke requirements of a local system to support the health of its citizens through better data and intelligence,’ it said.
‘This is best done through locally designed and managed infrastructure and Chief Data and Analytical Officers (CDAOs) and other partners across the system are in discussion with a range of government departments about how best to integrate wider public service data at a system level.’
The letter added that there are already similar tools that ‘exceed the capability and application’ of what the FDP is currently trying to develop and roll out at a system level.
The letter said: ‘The original business need for FDP is about creating a data connection capability – it is about federating data and interoperable standards. It should not be about imposing or advancing adoption of specific software solutions and yet the current rollout of FDP appears to be entirely associated with the adoption of specific tools or modules on a single software platform rather than the integration of data, we know that you have acknowledged this yourself.
‘This presents an issue for many CDAOs because we already have similar tools in use that presently exceed the capability and application of what the FDP is currently trying to develop or roll out at a system level.’
It added that ICBs have made significant investments in local data infrastructure ‘as previously directed by NHSE’, so transitioning to the FDP raises concerns about disruptions and the risk of losing extra functionality and value.
‘Clarity is needed on whether a partial adoption model is feasible and how local capabilities can be integrated into the platform,’ it said.
In November, it was reported that two third of ICBs had signed up to the FDP, alongside 87 acute hospital trusts.
However, the FDP has been the subject of controversy among GPs and the wider NHS, with confusion about whether primary care data would or would not be included in the platform.
Before the election, the now health secretary Wes Streeting said the rollout of the FDP had been ‘too permissive’ and ‘lazy’.
The platform is supplied by a consortium led by tech company Palantir, which includes Accenture, PWC, Carnall Farrar and NECS. It was awarded the £330m seven-year contract in November 2023 following a procurement process.
In February, legal proceedings against NHS England were launched by law campaigners in a bid to ‘uncover’ the contents of the contract, which resulted in an updated contract being published in March with fewer redactions.
The BMA and its GP committee also previously expressed concerns over the high value of the contract and particularly how confidential patient data will be used.
In June, a report suggested that inconsistent data infrastructure across ICSs in England was risking quality of care an increasing inequalities, and that there was an administrative burden on ICSs due to multiple instances of patient data across systems.
