Organisational attendees

• National Voices
• Understanding Patient Data
• Royal College of General Practitioners
• Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
• Association of Medical Research Charities
• NHS England
• Patients Association
• British Medical Association
• Office of the National Data Guardian
• East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
• FDP Programme Team (NHS England)
• Nottingham University Hospitals
• National Data Guardian

Apologies received

• Information Commissioner’s Office
• Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
• Department of Health and Social Care
• East Kent Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Open Actions

Meeting Minutes

Welcome and introductions

The Chair, Jacob Lant, opened the meeting.

Apologies were noted.

No conflicts or declarations of interests were raised.

Minutes and actions from previous meeting

The following updates were requested by the group:

From the minutes, the group discussed the minuting of the use of patient data for development and validation in relation to the AI Assisted Discharge Summary (AADS) tool. It was agreed to remove the sentence noting and clarifying that this was being conducted under appropriate governance frameworks, as the group would consider the information governance aspects of software development in greater depth at a future meeting.

A group member raised that they did not believe it had been minuted accurately that discharge summaries are not a direct care activity, as it was understood that the creation of a discharge summary forms part of a person’s direct care. The member clarified the point being made was that the use of patient data to develop, validate, and re-validate a tool may not clearly fall within the scope of direct care and may not be within patients’ reasonable expectations. This uncertainty makes it challenging to rely on implied consent. It was requested that the minutes be amended to more accurately reflect this clarification.

The Head of IG for NHS FDP provided assurance that the programme had reviewed the Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) and was updating the Information Governance (IG) framework, specifically to address incubator sites and clarify expectations for products and the rules governing them. This work aims to address points previously raised with AADS.

ACTION: Bring back a further update on AADS and reflect on how the challenge was being managed by the programme.

Action Log Review

• Population Health Management Development: On today’s agenda.
• User Interface Designs: On today’s agenda.
• The MHRA have been invited to a future meeting, likely in January 2026 due to scheduling challenges for November and December.

Terms of Reference (ToR)

The Chair introduced the need to update the group’s ToR to the Federated Data Platform (FDP), to reflect the move from a new initiative to delivery phase, and the emergence of significant related programmes like the Single Patient Record. The proposal included broadening the group’s scope, changing the name to ‘Data Transformation Check and Challenge’, and reviewing membership to ensure all relevant parties are included.

The Director of Data Management and Transformation supported expanding the remit to cover broader data transformation topics, including AI governance and Single Patient Record (SPR), whilst maintaining a focus on FDP issues.

The group agreed with expanding the scope but cautioned against diluting the group’s core FDP focus. It was suggested to maintain clear thematic anchors and possibly make use of subgroups or focussed meetings for specific issues.

The group highlighted that the term ‘single patient record’ may refer to an aggregation service rather than a literal single record and emphasised that the ToR make clear it is a conceptual approach rather than a final solution. The group recommended careful wording to avoid implying direct links with the FDP or specific vendors. It was also encouraged that independent groups are to be invited to provide challenge from a range of diverse perspectives.

ACTION: The PMO team agreed to amend the September 2025 minutes and circulate the revised versions, along with the draft Terms of Reference to the group via email for review and approval. Members were invited to suggest any additional organisations or individuals for group membership during this process. The Chair agreed to sign off the minutes and ToR, once the group agrees on the proposed revisions.

FDP and PET Programme Update

The Director of Data Management and Transformation presented an overview of the FDP and PET Programme to date, and the following highlights were noted:

• As of 13th October 2025, 154 trusts had signed up to the FDP, including acute, mental health, community, and children’s hospitals. The programme was ahead of schedule, projecting full coverage 12 months earlier than planned.
• Adoption of products like Cancer 360 and the System Coordination Centre (SCC) was increasing, with more Trusts retrofitting additional FDP products.
• The Q1 benefits statement was being finalised for publication, which showed continued positive trends in patient outcomes, theatre utilisation, and waiting list validation.
• Risks include organisational and financial constraints, especially as winter approaches, which may slow adoption rates.

The Chair raised the issue of Corporate Watch publishing an article in which FOI data had been detailed, which presented a different perspective on the FDP rollout and reported benefits compared to NHS England’s figures. The Chair suggested that NHS England consider issuing a public response to clarify definitions and address potential misunderstandings.

The Lead Senior Communications and Engagement Manager confirmed awareness of the FOI requests. It was raised there are ongoing internal discussions about developing a public dashboard to provide up to date, real time information on Trust sign-ups and product adoption, with the aim of improving transparency and reducing confusion arising from FOI driven reports.

The group emphasised the importance of transparency in reporting waiting list reductions, noting that early gains may not be sustained and that statistics should clearly outline their limitations to avoid misinterpretation.

ACTION: NHS England to consider public response to Corporate Watch article.

The group received and noted the update.

User Interface (UI) designs demo

The FDP Deputy Director of Product presented a UI demonstration, addressing previous feedback that FDP products appeared outdated and outlining a move to modern web development using the REACT framework. The new approach separated the data layer (within FDP/Foundry) from the front end, enabling scalable, customisable, and mobile friendly interfaces.

The demonstration provided updates on the progression from Foundry interfaces to cleaner, interactive dashboards such as Cancer 360, System Coordination Centre, and Automated Theatre Scheduling. It was noted that the REACT based frontend is an NHS owned asset, providing independence from the Foundry platform and supporting future flexibility. The demo was conducted using training environments with no real data.

A group member raised concern on whether NHS ownership of the UI had been planned from the outset or evolved in response to public feedback. In response, the Deputy Director of Product confirmed it was always intended, though feedback received had accelerated the transition.

The Chair emphasised the importance of user satisfaction in driving improvements.

The group received and noted the update.

Population Health Management (PHM) Update

The FDP Delivery Team joined the meeting and presented the Strategic Commissioning Tool, developed on the FDP to support ICBs in population health management and strategic commissioning decisions and evaluation. It was currently deployed across three incubator sites (Cheshire and Merseyside, North East and North Cumbria, and Frimley) and nine early adopter sites, with over 300 users trained on the system.

The group discussed the use of data for interventions and checked whether the data being used was identifiable. It was confirmed that the tool operates using synonymous (non-identifiable) data, meaning no personal identifiers are held. It was clarified that whilst individual tracking was not possible, the tool can identify locations where frailty hubs or other services should be established. The tool helps build the business case and track aggregated data rather than personal level information.

The group checked whether AI was being used to identify cohorts. It was explained that the system only references NICE guidelines and operates solely at a cohort level (for example, frailty, single long-term conditions), not at an individual level.

The group checked how the FDP team were protecting against bias. The team explained that the tool was still in development, undergoing testing and FDP assurance reviews, which includes consideration of potential bias. At present, the prompts did not involve personal characteristics, reducing the risk of bias, though this remains an area for future focus and reassurance.

The group raised a challenge about data quality, particularly regarding health inequalities and ethnicity, and questioned the readiness of ICBs to use PHM data effectively. It was noted that not all ICBs currently have robust PHM platforms, which may limit the tool’s effectiveness.

The group emphasised that transparency and public engagement were essential for the tool to have meaningful impact. It was noted that ICBs were required to evidence patient and public engagement for data sharing, alongside ongoing national public work to establish expectations and boundaries for the use of PHM data.

The group checked the governance and oversight of the data being used, highlighting the need for transparency across all processes and for safeguards to be in place to prevent inappropriate use. The Delivery Team acknowledged the importance of ensuring that skilled users have the capability to interpret the information appropriately and effectively.

The group received and noted the update.

Communications and Engagement Update

The FDP Lead Senior Communications and Engagement Manager provided an update, noting a forthcoming press release (in collaboration with No.10 and DHSC) highlighting elective procedure benefits, broader case studies, and new pilots. A finalised security animation video was published and will be promoted via social media and the NHS website.

Work was also progressing on a public facing communications campaign aligned with opt-out reform and legislative changes, informed by public deliberation insights. The team were continuing to explore podcasts, webinars, and organise roundtables on key topics.

The group requested that the team continue to provide clearer, system wide communication of benefits.

The Chair recommended tailoring communications to different public segments and leveraging existing engagement on patient data. Positive feedback was shared on the security video from the group, with suggestions to involve patient representatives in future activities.

The group received and noted the update.

AOB and Close

No AOBs were raised.

The Chair highlighted that the next FDP Check and Challenge meeting will be held on Friday 21 November 2025.

Copyright © 2025 NHS FDP