More than two dozen freedom-of-information responses reviewed by The Guardian on 17 October 2026 found that 16 NHS trusts and health boards said they did not use Palantir’s Federated Data Platform (FDP). The responses cite limited additional functionality, duplication of existing tools, weak expected benefits and abandoned trials. That does not show the platform fails across the NHS: NHS England says 137 trusts have reported benefits, while acknowledging that its headline performance statistics do not prove the FDP caused those improvements.
What the Federated Data Platform is supposed to do
NHS England awarded the FDP to a consortium led by Palantir in November 2023. The programme is intended to provide a consistent technical way for NHS organisations to connect data they already collect for patient care and coordinate operational work across trusts and local systems.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
In practice, the platform is used for tasks such as managing waiting lists, coordinating capacity and scheduling surgery. It is not presented as a replacement for every local clinical record or administrative system. Its value depends on whether it can connect those systems reliably and deliver better workflows than tools a trust already operates.
Which organisations said they were not using it?
The FOI review identified 16 trusts and health boards that declared they did not use the FDP. Named examples include:
#1 Best Overall
- University Hospitals of North Midlands
- Dorset HealthCare
- Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust
- Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust
- Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust
- University Hospitals Birmingham
The responses describe non-use, discontinued trials or a return to previous systems. They are evidence about the organisations that answered the FOI requests, not a census proving that every NHS trust rejects the platform.
Why trusts gave for declining or stopping FDP use
- No functionality beyond existing systems: Some organisations said the FDP did not add capabilities they could not already obtain locally.
- No significant improvement: Other responses reported little measurable gain in operational performance.
- Limited expected benefit: A trust may decide that implementation effort, training and integration work are not justified by the likely return.
- Duplication: Where local software already supports a workflow, adding another layer can increase complexity rather than remove it.
- Preference for another solution: Some organisations chose different tools or reverted after a trial.
These objections point to a local-fit problem as much as a technology problem. A centrally standardised platform can make data exchange easier in theory, but each trust still has different software, processes, staffing and data-quality constraints.
What benefits have been reported?
NHS England told The Guardian that 137 trusts had reported benefits from FDP tools. NHS England data attributed 117,000 additional operations and a 14.3% reduction in discharge delays for long-stay patients to trusts using the tools.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Those figures require careful interpretation. NHS England added that the analysis did not control for other variables, so it cannot establish that the FDP caused the additional operations or the reduction in delays. Changes in staffing, demand, management practices or other technologies could also have contributed. The statistics are therefore reported associations, not independently proven causal effects.
Some health bodies nevertheless told the newspaper that the FDP made waiting-list management easier or improved surgery scheduling. NHS England and Palantir described the programme as “objectively a successful programme,” and said ministers had reported that it exceeded its benefits forecast. Critics take the opposite view. Martin Wrigley, a Liberal Democrat member of the Commons Science and Technology Committee, said that centrally dictating a solution “can’t work” and accused Palantir of over-promising and under-delivering.
Is it better than existing NHS software?
The available evidence does not support a single NHS-wide answer. The relevant comparison is not a generic “old system versus new system”; it is whether the FDP delivers a specific operational improvement in a particular trust.
| Comparison question | What the evidence indicates |
|---|---|
| Functionality | Some trusts found no meaningful capability beyond their existing systems; others reported easier waiting-list or theatre management. |
| Measured impact | NHS England reports positive results, but says confounding factors were not controlled, so causation is unproven. |
| Interoperability | The FDP is designed to connect existing data and systems, but local organisations still report duplication or insufficient fit. |
| Operational model | A shared national platform offers standardisation; trusts that value local autonomy may prefer existing or alternative tools. |
| Implementation value | Benefits depend on data quality, workflow redesign, adoption and integration work, not merely on installing the platform. |
For a trust considering adoption, the practical test is a defined use case with a baseline, a measured target and a plan for ending the deployment if the target is not met. National benefit claims should not substitute for that local evaluation.
What does the contract cost and can it be broken?
The FDP deal has been reported as worth £330 million. NHS England awarded it in November 2023 to a consortium led by Palantir.
Rank #3
- Perfect Gift for Data Analysts – A fun and unique desk sign for business intelligence experts, data scientists, and analytics professionals.
- Bold & Readable Design – High-contrast lettering ensures visibility on any desk, making it an instant conversation starter.
- Compact & Lightweight – Small enough to fit any workspace without taking up too much room but big enough to make an impact.
- Durable & Long-Lasting Material – Made with premium materials to withstand daily office use while maintaining its sleek look.
- Great for Any Occasion – Ideal for birthdays, work anniversaries, promotions, or just a fun appreciation gift for number crunchers
A parliamentary letter dated 11 August 2025 said NHS England had one active contract with Palantir for the FDP. The letter’s summary contract data also listed live contracts with NHS Essex and Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, while warning that the available information was incomplete.
The material available for this story does not establish the date, trigger or terms of any contractual break clause, nor whether the government has exercised or waived one. It would be inaccurate to say that Palantir has been removed from the NHS or that the contract can be ended on a specific date without those terms. The FOI responses concern individual trusts’ use of the platform, not termination of the national procurement.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Can Palantir contractors access identifiable patient data?
National Data Guardian Dr Nicola Byrne said some external supplier staff supporting the FDP could access identifiable patient information in the National Data Integration Tenant for specific technical purposes. That is a statement about permitted access for defined support work, not evidence that contractors have unrestricted access to all NHS records.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →The National Data Guardian also said the original data-protection impact assessment (DPIA) she reviewed did not accurately reflect operational arrangements and acknowledged that this was an error. The concern is governance as well as cybersecurity: if documentation does not match how access works in practice, patients and NHS organisations cannot reliably understand who can see data, why they can see it and what controls apply.
Rank #4
Byrne has said a data project must be treated as a “trust project”, “not simply a technical one.” Transparency about access, accurate DPIAs, audit trails, least-privilege permissions and clear public explanations are therefore conditions for legitimacy, not optional communications work.
What the dispute means for NHS data policy
The disagreement exposes a tension between national standardisation and local decision-making. A common platform could make it easier to coordinate services across organisational boundaries, but a centrally selected product may be rejected where trusts see little incremental value or where integration burdens outweigh benefits.
The evidence supports a mixed conclusion: some NHS bodies report practical gains, while at least 16 organisations in the FOI review said they were not using the FDP or had abandoned it. Neither side’s broadest claim is proved by the available data. The platform’s long-term case will depend on transparent outcome measurement, demonstrable interoperability with local systems and governance arrangements that accurately describe access to identifiable information.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
