Organisational attendees

• British Medical Association
• Department of Health and Social Care
• FDP Programme Team (NHS England)
• Healthwatch England
• Information Commissioner’s Office
• National Voices
• NHS Confederation
• NHS England
• Office of the National Data Guardian
• Patient Public Voices
• SPR Programme Team (NHS England)
• The Chief Data and Analytical Officers Network
• The NHS Alliance
• Understanding Patient Data

Apologies received

• Association of Medical Royal Colleges

Welcome and introductions

The Chair, Jacob Lant, opened the meeting.

Apologies were noted.

Minutes from the previous meeting

The group reviewed the draft minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2026.

Following discussion by the group, the minutes were approved subject to the following amendments:

• The record of the discussion on the National Data Integration Tenant (NDIT) Data Privacy Impact Assessment (DPIA) would be revised to better reflect the wider context around the concerns raised at the meeting, which had been primarily focused on the error within the DPIA itself, rather than the subsequent media coverage.
• The above amendment should align with previously agreed actions regarding updates to NHS England FAQs and supporting materials, to ensure this position is clearly communicated.

It was agreed that the revised minutes would be recirculated for approval via correspondence.

Action: Secretariat to amend May minutes in line with feedback from the group and re-circulate for approval via correspondence.

Action log and discussion

The group reviewed the action log and discussed the three actions.

CAC-123: It was confirmed that updates to the NHS England FAQs, following the NDIT DPIA issue, had been completed. The revised content includes further detail on administrative access controls and audit arrangements for both supplier and NHS staff and has been published on the NHS England website. The group noted that this messaging had also begun to be reflected in external communications, including recent media coverage and ministerial commentary. Action Closed.

CAC-124: The group discussed the status of the NDIT DPIA review and update. The DPIA and associated privacy notice had been reviewed and were progressing through information governance approvals. It was agreed that this action should remain open until the updated DPIA has been formally approved and published.

Clarification was provided on the approach to publication, including the use of a banner on the existing DPIA web page to indicate that it is under review, and plans to publish the updated DPIA once approvals are complete. The importance of maintaining transparency during this period was noted. Action to marked as Open.

CAC-125: The final action, relating to engagement with underrepresented and digitally excluded groups as part of the Single Patient Record programme, was noted and scheduled for discussion under the relevant agenda item.

The group emphasised the importance of clear and accessible language in both the DPIA and supporting communications, particularly in explaining the context and controls around supplier access to data, to support public understanding and confidence. Action Closed.

Action: CAC-124 to be reopened until updated NDIT DPIA is approved and published

NHS Federated Data Platform (NHS FDP) programme update

The group received an update on NHS FDP delivery progress, including adoption, benefits realisation, and ongoing product development. It was noted that 139 trusts are now live or in delivery, with the majority demonstrating benefits from at least one product. Ongoing support is provided to organisations through the FDP Centre of Excellence, including training, business change, and transformation support to help sustain and improve benefits realisation where required.

The group discussed recent media coverage relating to reported benefits, including reductions in waiting times and improvements in theatre utilisation. It was clarified that such reporting reflects a subset of organisations using specific product modules, and that benefits are assessed using defined methodologies and triangulated with national data sources.

It was noted that reported figures may be influenced by factors such as length of adoption, case mix, and local operational context. The importance of presenting benefits data in a way that is transparent, proportionate, and accurately reflects the contribution of NHS FDP was emphasised.

Members raised questions regarding the concentration of reported benefits within a small number of organisations and the need to demonstrate impact across a broader and more representative range of providers. NHS England confirmed that support is provided across all participating organisations and that benefits data is drawn from a national cohort. It was agreed that further work to present comparisons over time, and across different levels of system maturity, would support a clearer understanding of impact and be brought to a future meeting.

The group also highlighted the importance of clearly communicating the role of NHS FDP as an enabling tool within wider operational pathways. It was noted that productivity improvements, including theatre utilisation, are influenced by a range of operational and cultural factors beyond data alone. The need for clear and accessible language to explain this context to a public audience was emphasised.

An update was provided on ongoing product development, including new and emerging use cases such as shared patient tracking lists, single queue diagnostics, personalised stratified follow-up, and population health management tools. These are being developed in collaboration with local organisations and piloted across multiple sites. The importance of aligning product development with patient benefit and NHS operational needs was noted.

Action: NHS England to include a visual summary of NHS FDP adoption and benefits across regions in future papers to support understanding of geographic spread and impact.

NHS FDP communications and engagement update

The group received an update on communications and engagement activity, noting that a significant focus during May and June had been responding to increased public concern about the processing of personal data following media attention. This included media handling, ministerial briefings, and the publication of a statement to support clear, accessible messaging. Ongoing work to ensure consistency across communications, including Freedom of Information requests and Parliamentary Question responses, was also noted.

The group discussed plans to update public-facing information on the National Data Opt-Out. It was confirmed that a clear and concise statement was being prepared for the NHS website opt-out page to explain that opting out does not remove data from the NHS FDP, and why this is the case. This will be supported by updated FAQs to provide further explanation, with a focus on ensuring information is readily accessible at the point users are most likely to seek it.

Members noted that opt-out rates are being closely monitored and that recent increases may be linked to media coverage. It was agreed that the group would benefit from visibility of these trends, alongside updates on when revised communications are published.

The group discussed the complexity of communicating the National Data Opt-Out and wider data use policies. The application of the National Data Opt-Out in the context of NHS FDP data flows was clarified, noting that current uses are either for direct care or anonymised data, and therefore not subject to the opt-out. It was highlighted that current explanations may be difficult to understand, even for informed audiences, and that further work is needed to present this information clearly in plain language to support public understanding and trust.

The importance of ensuring that communications accurately reflect the legal and operational context was emphasised, including making clear that NHS FDP is not treated differently but operates within existing frameworks for direct care and anonymised secondary uses.

An update was also provided on ongoing engagement activity, including collaboration with the Health Data Public Panel and stakeholder groups such as Royal Colleges, as well as the development of communications assets to demonstrate programme benefits.

Action: Understanding Patient Data to send analysis of National Data Opt-Out trends to the group; NHS England to recirculate this to members for visibility.

Transforming and Connecting Care (TCC) update

The group received an update on the Transforming and Connecting Care (TCC) programme, including progress on the Single Patient Record (SPR). It was noted that a Full Business Case had recently been approved, enabling the programme to move into mobilisation and delivery. The programme aims to address fragmentation in patient data and improve access to timely, joined-up information across health and care.

An overview was provided of the core components of the programme, including the Single Patient Record, unified genomics record, and enabling data and technical infrastructure. It was emphasised that SPR will provide a consolidated view of patient information while maintaining existing systems, and will support both clinical use and, in future, appropriately governed secondary uses.

The group noted that the programme is at an early stage, with further work underway to define the technical architecture, scope, and delivery model. Procurement activity is planned to support software engineering and system integration capabilities, alongside continued engagement with suppliers and stakeholders. Initial delivery will focus on pilot implementations in selected pathways, including maternity and frailty.

Members raised questions regarding the role of suppliers in delivery, the future use of data for secondary purposes, and how the programme fits within the wider data ecosystem. It was acknowledged that decisions on architecture and secondary use models are still being developed, and that further clarity will be required as the programme progresses.

The group discussed the handling of specific data types, including genomics data, noting that this may require additional safeguards and careful consideration, particularly in relation to public understanding and consent. Clarification was provided that the SPR will not hold full genomic data, but rather structured information to support care.

Questions were also raised regarding data minimisation and the extent of data sharing within the SPR. It was confirmed that the programme will be designed to ensure that only the data necessary for defined use cases is shared, with minimisation applied at the point of data request rather than retrospectively.

The relationship between the TCC programme and the Single Patient Record was clarified, with SPR identified as the central component within a broader programme of work to improve interoperability, data standards, and infrastructure across the NHS.

AI update

The group received an update on NHS England’s participation in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) AI Airlock programme, which is exploring the safe regulation and deployment of AI-enabled medical devices. It was noted that NHS England is contributing to phase two of the programme, with findings expected to be published shortly.

An overview was provided of a simulated AI tool developed to support this work, using synthetic data to test approaches to summarising clinical information. This simulation enabled the team to explore monitoring, evaluation, and governance arrangements in a controlled environment without the use of real patient data.

The group noted the development of a monitoring framework to assess AI system performance over time, including both automated metrics and human review processes. This supports post-market surveillance and helps to identify issues such as model drift, as well as informing decisions on when intervention or rollback may be required.

The concept of predetermined change control plans was also discussed, enabling agreed changes to AI systems to be implemented more efficiently within an established regulatory framework. This approach was highlighted as an important enabler for scaling AI safely, while maintaining appropriate oversight.

Members noted the importance of transparency and clarity in communicating the use of AI, particularly in relation to public understanding. Feedback highlighted that technical language may be difficult to interpret and that clear, accessible explanations will be essential to support trust and engagement.

It was noted that further detail will be available following publication of the MHRA report, and it was agreed that the AI update should be scheduled earlier in the agenda at a future meeting to allow for more detailed discussion.

Action: AI update to be scheduled earlier in the agenda of the next meeting to allow a more detailed discussion.

Any other business and close

No other items were raised.

The Chair advised the group that the next Data Transformation Check and Challenge meeting will be held on Friday 17 July 2026.