Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
At least 16 NHS trusts and health boards told a Freedom of Information review that they do not use Palantir’s Federated Data Platform (FDP), according to reporting published by The Guardian on 17 October 2026. Their explanations included duplication of existing systems, no meaningful extra functionality, limited expected benefit and a preference for other local solutions. Some organisations said they abandoned trials or reverted to previous software.
This does not show that the FDP has failed across the NHS. Other bodies report operational gains, while NHS England says 137 trusts have reported benefits. However, NHS England also says its headline improvement figures do not prove that the platform caused those outcomes.
What the Federated Data Platform is supposed to do
NHS England awarded the FDP in November 2023 to a consortium led by Palantir. The programme is intended to provide a common technical way for NHS organisations to connect data they already collect for patient care and coordinate operations across trusts and local systems.
It is not described as a replacement for every local clinical-record or hospital-management system. Instead, it is an infrastructure and software layer intended to help organisations work with information held in different systems, including for operational planning such as waiting-list management and theatre scheduling.
#1 Best Overall
Which NHS organisations said they do not use it?
The Guardian’s review of more than two dozen FOI responses identified 16 trusts and health boards that declared they did not use the FDP. Named examples were:
- 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 FOI responses cover non-use or dissatisfaction at the organisations that replied. They do not establish that every NHS trust rejects the platform, and they should not be read as a complete national list of non-users.
Why some trusts rejected or stopped using the FDP
No clear functionality beyond existing tools
Several organisations said the FDP offered no functionality beyond software they already had. If a trust can manage its lists, capacity or scheduling with established systems, adding another data layer may create integration work without a corresponding operational gain.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Limited or unproven benefit
Some trusts reported no significant improvement or said the expected benefit was too small to justify adoption. Others preferred different solutions that fitted their local processes more closely.
Duplication and abandoned trials
Responses cited duplication of existing arrangements. Some organisations said they had trialled the FDP but abandoned the work or returned to earlier systems. This points to an implementation and fit problem rather than a single technical defect: a national platform still has to interoperate with each trust’s software, data quality and working practices.
Central standardisation versus local control
The dispute also reflects a governance choice. A centrally standardised platform can make it easier to coordinate data across organisational boundaries, but trusts may judge that a mandated approach limits local autonomy or imposes costs where local systems already work. Liberal Democrat science and technology committee member Martin Wrigley argued that “centrally dictating a solution to the NHS can’t work,” while also accusing Palantir of over-promising and under-delivering.
Rank #3
What benefits have other NHS bodies reported?
The picture is divided. Some health bodies told The Guardian that the FDP made waiting-list management easier or improved surgery scheduling. NHS England said 137 trusts had reported benefits from the platform’s tools.
| Reported measure | Figure | Important qualification |
|---|---|---|
| Additional operations associated with trusts using FDP tools | 117,000 | NHS England data as reported by The Guardian; NHS England said the analysis does not establish cause and effect because other variables were not controlled. |
| Reduction in discharge delays for long-stay patients | 14.3% | NHS England data as reported by The Guardian; this is an association, not independently proven causal impact. |
| Trusts reporting benefits | 137 | NHS England’s reported count in 2026 coverage; it does not mean all 137 saw the same outcome or that FDP use alone produced it. |
NHS England and Palantir described the programme as “objectively, a successful programme,” and ministers were reported to have said it exceeded its benefits forecast. Those claims sit alongside the FOI responses from non-users and the department’s own warning about confounding factors. The available evidence therefore does not support a blanket conclusion that the FDP is either superior everywhere or ineffective everywhere.
Is Palantir’s system better than existing NHS software?
There is no like-for-like national comparison in the reported material that proves the FDP is better than each trust’s existing software. The practical test is local:
Rank #4
- Functionality: does it provide capabilities the trust cannot already obtain?
- Interoperability: can it connect reliably to the trust’s clinical, administrative and scheduling systems?
- Measured outcomes: are improvements demonstrated after accounting for staffing, demand, process changes and other variables?
- Total burden: do integration, training, governance and supplier-management costs outweigh the benefit?
- Autonomy: can the trust retain appropriate control over workflows and data decisions?
On the evidence currently reported, the answer differs by organisation. Some trusts found enough value to continue; others found duplication or insufficient improvement.
How much does the NHS-Palantir contract cost?
The FDP deal has been reported as worth £330 million. NHS England awarded it in November 2023 to a consortium led by Palantir.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →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 showed live contracts with NHS Essex and Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, while warning that the available data was incomplete. These records do not provide a complete inventory of every local arrangement or establish the amount paid by each trust.
Best Value
When can the contract be broken?
The reporting supplied for this article does not state the FDP contract’s break-clause date, notice period or termination conditions. It therefore cannot establish when NHS England may end the deal, whether a break option has been exercised or waived, or what financial consequences would follow. Claims that Palantir has been removed from the NHS, or that the contract is certain to continue for its full term, are not supported by the available information.
Can Palantir contractors access identifiable patient data?
The National Data Guardian said that some external supplier staff supporting the FDP could access identifiable patient information in the National Data Integration Tenant for specific technical purposes. Access is therefore not accurately described as either unrestricted or impossible; it depends on the technical task and the controls applied.
The guardian also said the original data-protection impact assessment (DPIA) she reviewed did not accurately reflect operational arrangements, acknowledging that this was an error. She warned that transparency failures can quickly damage confidence and said a data programme must be treated as a “trust project,” not simply a technical one.
For patients and trusts, the key questions are whether access is limited to a defined purpose, properly authorised and logged, and clearly explained in current governance documents. An inaccurate DPIA makes it harder for the public to understand those safeguards, even where technical controls exist.
What the evidence means for the NHS
The FDP is a national infrastructure programme with uneven local adoption. The FOI responses show that at least 16 responding trusts and health boards do not use it, while other organisations report operational benefits and NHS England counts 137 trusts reporting some benefit. Neither side of that record is sufficient on its own to prove universal success or failure.
The central unresolved issue is whether a common platform delivers measurable gains beyond functioning local systems while preserving interoperability, transparent data governance and public trust. Until NHS England publishes comparable outcome methods, complete contract terms and accurate operational privacy documentation, decisions about the FDP will remain a mix of local experience, central claims and contested evidence.
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.
