In recent weeks, the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has been contacted by several members of the public and journalists regarding NHS England’s presentation and communication of information and performance metrics informed by the Federated Data Platform (FDP). The concerns raised with us have largely related to recent changes made to the webpage on methods for the published uptake and benefits information regarding the FDP. We recognise the high public interest in both the FDP and the reporting of accurate NHS performance data.
We have noted public concerns following the addition of a caveating sentence to methods information on the causality and role of FDP in some key NHS performance data, and concerns about the future communication of FDP-related benefits by the NHS and DHSC. OSR has considered these matters under our casework function. We have engaged with statisticians in NHS England and conducted our own desk research based on the information provided to us by both the NHS and those who raised concerns with us. This has involved reviewing the concerns against the Standards of the Code of Practice for Statistics.
On 6 June 2026, NHS England added the sentence “We cannot therefore draw conclusions about cause and effect as other variables have not been controlled for” to the updated version of the methods section of the FDP uptake and benefits page. This sentence was added to all sections where the FDP benefits relate to a before/after comparison of performance. The addition of this caveat coincided with an update to the methods page to provide greater detail about the source data used and the calculation steps when analysing FDP and other source data. NHS England has told OSR that this was motivated, in part, by NHS England having received numerous Freedom of Information requests to provide more detail on how data provided by FDP was analysed.
We understand that the previous version of the methods section included a description which stated that the data related to a before/after comparison, comparing average pre-FDP adoption baselines with post-FDP adoption observations. According to NHS England, this did not claim to be a method which demonstrated causality. In adding the sentence on cause and effect to relevant sections of the website in June, we understand that NHS England was seeking to make this information more explicitly clear to users. While the addition of this sentence is welcome, we understand why many users took this to represent a significant change in how NHS England was communicating the benefits of FDP data in relation to NHS performance.
As a result, the FDP Benefits and Assurance team in NHS England has acknowledged that there is more that can be done to strengthen messaging around the FDP benefits data and its onward interpretation by users. We therefore welcome the FDP team’s decision to take the following steps in response to our casework investigation and regulatory findings:
- The following caveat will be added to the main page of the FDP benefits and uptake website:
NHS England publishes two types of benefits for operational products that are supporting patient care:
-
- The first is a count of actions taken by local NHS users through products – for instance the number of records reviewed using the RTT product.
- The second is a benefits calculation applied by NHS England to calculate the impact of an NHS FDP product on a local organisation’s operational performance. These are observational before/after comparisons showing changes to each metric following the introduction of the NHS FDP. For these observations, NHS England cannot draw conclusions about cause and effect as other variables have not been controlled for.
- NHS England will encourage all public facing communications to be clear that any metrics involving observations of before/after data comparisons are clearly and appropriately labelled as such, and include clear information about causality.
- NHS England has commissioned Imperial College to undertake an independent academic evaluation of FDP, and is prioritising the Inpatients and OPTICA products where the issue around causality is most evident. Analysts from the Health Foundation, who previously undertook analysis of discharge delays using publicly available sitrep data using the names of trusts with OPTICA, will be invited to contribute to this work. NHS England plan to publish results of the evaluation in a format that is digestible for a public audience.
- NHS England will clearly draw attention to any changes made in the methods regarding FDP analysis at the time of the update – this may be the addition of new metrics or any changes in existing metrics.
- NHS England will prepare a publishing schedule for releasing trust-level information on benefits (the disaggregated data) to ensure further transparency.
- NHS England will continue to consider possibilities for incorporating comparisons with controls, noting the issue that there is no common adoption date for FDP at trust-level.
- NHS England will clarify on its website that the FDP case studies presented are written by organisations using FDP themselves and are not authored or verified by NHS England.
We have requested that the NHS England Head of Profession for Statistics keeps OSR informed of progress against these commitments, and that the FDP team also reports on them publicly in a timely and transparent manner.
Some of the correspondence we received also raised concerns about the possibility of a culture within NHS England which suppressed criticism of the role or impact of the FDP. OSR has considered these concerns under Standard 3: Decision making and leadership of the Standards for the Public Use of Statistics, Data and Wider Analysis. This states that public bodies should seek and use impartial, expert advice when using statistics in the public domain, and that those responsible for public communications should follow advice from professional analysts. Within the limited scope of our casework investigation, we have been assured of the independence of NHS England’s Head of Profession for Statistics and the role of NHS England statisticians in analysing the benefits of the FDP.
However, we have also identified that the role of statistical teams in informing the external-facing outputs of NHS England and DHSC should be strengthened, such as through more joined-up working with media teams, ministerial private offices and other NHS analysts. We expect NHS England to ensure that any figures cited by ministers or in official briefings about the FDP and its effectiveness are communicated in a clear, accurate manner. We will be monitoring future uses of FDP data to ensure this is the case. OSR cannot comment on the organisational culture of NHS England in relation to the FDP beyond its statistical functions.
While this public statement concludes our casework investigation into this matter, OSR will consider any new information provided to us about the production or use of these statistics.