The discrepancy between official reports and the actual use of the technology raises questions about the effectiveness of the £330 million government contract.
According to The Guardian, citing responses received in response to more than 100 Freedom of Information requests, NHS England states that 137 healthcare organisations are already connected to the Federated Data Platform (FDP) – a platform designed to consolidate healthcare data and improve the efficiency of hospitals.
However, 29 organisations listed in the report as benefiting from the platform have stated that the system has not yet been put into operation or that they are not using its applications. In particular, Epsom and St Helier stated that it is not yet using the FDP, Mersey Care reported that it has not yet started working with the system, and Nottingham University Hospitals noted the absence of an agreed implementation timetable.
NHS England explains that the concept of ‘benefit’ covers a wide range of the platform’s tools. In particular, organisations can use it for administrative data processing and calculating the cost of treatment, without using the applications directly to organise clinical care.
The platform’s effectiveness is a matter of debate
The FDP is intended to consolidate fragmented medical data, simplify the management of patient waiting lists, speed up hospital discharges and improve the planning of operations. The contract with Palantir came into effect in 2024, the publication notes.
The company claims that healthcare organisations using the platform have carried out an additional 117,000 operations, reduced delays in discharging patients with long hospital stays by 14.3 per cent, and improved the rate of timely receipt of cancer screening results within 28 days by 5.6 per cent.
However, The Guardian notes that NHS England has previously acknowledged that it cannot prove a direct causal link between the use of the platform and the increase in the number of operations: other factors may also have influenced the figures. The validity of claims regarding the programme’s impact has come under further scrutiny from the UK’s Office for Statistical Regulation.
Chi Onwura, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Science and Technology, believes that the discrepancy between claims about the benefits of the FDP and the responses from medical organisations requires an explanation. She has called on the government to consider using the contractually stipulated mechanism for early termination of the partnership in 2027 and to hold an open tender for a new system provider.
Palantir, for its part, rejects the criticism and states that the platform helps to improve healthcare and enhance the efficiency of the NHS.
Questions regarding the public sector’s digitalisation model
The debate surrounding the contract touches not only on the technical capabilities of the software, but also on the principles of public procurement, the transparency of performance evaluation and the dependence of public bodies on major technology suppliers.
Concerns about the processing of medical data remain a further factor. According to The Guardian, more than 44,000 people have lodged legal objections to the transfer, storage or use of their medical data under the FDP.
The UK government must now assess whether the platform’s actual impact justifies the costs of its implementation and operation. The decision will also have implications for the further digitalisation of public services, where technology projects require not only significant investment but also measurable results.
The situation with Palantir demonstrates how important it is to evaluate government digital projects based on the actual use of the tools and verifiable results, rather than solely on the number of organisations connected or the claimed benefits.
This story was translated with the assistance of artificial intelligence.The translation was also reviewed by the Logos Press editorial team.
Follow our updates
Have information for the newsroom? Share it with Logos-Press
Comments
0No comments yet. You can start the conversation.
Comments are open to readers with a Logos Press account.
Sign in to comment