For Baw, meanwhile, the FDP was answering the wrong question, bringing the health service’s priorities into question.
“Yes, perhaps an FDP does provide value and benefits, but if you had more administrative staff, you could enhance pathways. Such an enormous expenditure on FDP as if it is the only way to improve things,” he said. “At a time when staff shortages are hard. It’s not a good look for a national health service to spend hand over fist on data platforms when it can’t pay its staff.”
He also expressed concerns that the project so far remains ill-defined and threatens to blur the lines between research, planning and population healthcare.
“We are dealing with a concept and a process that is still evolving. The FAQs talks about five main use cases that are a jumble across NHS, and constitute a jumble of legal use,” he said.
He concluded that he would find it difficult to advise his general practice patients on the security of their data in the FDP under current proposals. “As a clinician, I have patients who might not come to see the doctor out of concern that data entered by me might end up in the hands of other people who weren’t parts of that conversation. I worry we will have a mass opt-out as a result of that.”