Almost a third (30%) of English hospital trusts using Palantir’s Federated Data Platform (FDP) are carrying out fewer patient operations than before they started using it, according to new data obtained by campaign group Foxglove. The NHS contract with Palantir was awarded in 2023 and centers on its FDP system, which is designed to integrate fragmented data across England to improve patient care coordination. The platform includes tools like Inpatient CCS that help schedule operations, but the data shows a mixed picture of results across hospitals using it. Of the 41 trusts using Inpatient CCS, 13 reported fewer procedures after implementing the FDP tool, according to Foxglove’s analysis. These 13 trusts together performed 9,073 fewer operations after adopting the system compared to before its use.
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital accounts for 84% of patients flagged for removal from outpatient waiting lists, according to fudzilla.com. Chelsea and Westminster also represents 25,584 of the 82,349 patients identified for removal from inpatient waiting lists.
NHS England has not yet confirmed whether staffing shortages or other issues explain the drop in operations at these hospitals. The data also reveals that NHS England has not adjusted performance figures for factors like extra staff or weekend clinics when reporting gains. NHS England said it cannot draw conclusions about cause and effect because other variables have not been controlled for in the analysis.
The government has launched a review of its £330 million contract with Palantir Technologies Inc., which includes a formal investigation into whether to extend or end the agreement by 2027, according to a report from Yahoo Finance. The review was prompted by a report from the cross-party Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which urged ministers to invoke the break clause in the contract. The committee highlighted the risks of relying on a small number of US tech firms for critical health data, calling Palantir’s involvement an unacceptable point of weakness.
Palantir’s UK executive vice-chair Louis Mosley argued that criticism is based more on ideology than operational facts and warned that exiting the contract could hurt patient care. Foxglove’s head of strategy Tim Squirrell criticized NHS England and Palantir for not releasing detailed data that would allow proper scrutiny, computerweekly.com reported. He said the lack of transparency prevents effective public oversight of how FDP is performing in different hospitals. Squirrell added that Palantir cannot claim benefits for some trusts while ignoring negative impacts elsewhere. He questioned whether the evidence is strong enough to justify another major contract with Palantir in a vital public service like the NHS.
However, former deputy director of data engineering at NHS England Tom Bartlett defended the broader goals of FDP and said benefits are not always visible in national reports. Bartlett emphasized that the platform’s success depends on local clinical teams developing solutions, rather than just top-down implementation. He noted that many NHS departments still rely on outdated systems like whiteboards and spreadsheets, which pose risks to data integrity.
The Palantir contract with the NHS is valued at over £300 million, and it has drawn criticism from civil servants in other departments who have moved away from using its services. The situation has raised questions about how effectively Palantir’s technology is being used and whether it is delivering value for money. Despite concerns, Palantir continues to defend its role in the NHS and argues that its tools are essential for digital transformation efforts.
The debate over Palantir’s involvement reflects broader concerns about the use of foreign technology in public services and how such tools are integrated into everyday healthcare delivery. As the NHS continues to modernize its systems, the impact of Palantir’s platform remains under close scrutiny by both officials and advocacy groups.
IMAGE: Norfolk And Norwich University Hospital, Norfolk Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
This article passed automated originality and source-verification checks before publishing.