May 1st 2026
CTRL + Care Episode 39, 1 May 2026
What happens when trust in data starts to wobble? That’s the thread running through this week’s CTRL + Care — and it’s one that will feel very close to home for anyone working across health and social care.
“Not a hack — a governance failure”
The headline story is the UK Biobank data incident. Data from half a million people appearing for sale sounds like a cyber breach — but as Michelle and Katie unpack, that’s not actually what happened.
“This wasn’t a hack,” they explain. “This was misuse of legitimately accessed data.”
That distinction matters. It shifts the conversation away from firewalls and passwords, and towards contracts, oversight, and accountability. The data was de-identified, but still highly detailed — including genetic, lifestyle, and health information.
The story was first reported by BBC News in UK Biobank health data listed for sale in China, government confirms, confirming the data had been accessed through approved research channels before being misused.
And as the episode points out, “de-identified doesn’t mean risk free.” When datasets are rich enough, the potential for re-identification is always there.
What really sits underneath this story is participation. UK Biobank relies on people choosing to contribute their data for the public good. “Even a small erosion of trust,” Katie notes, “can have a big impact on future research.”
There are clear lessons for social care. As data sharing grows, the risks don’t just scale technically — they scale relationally. Trust isn’t a given. It has to be actively maintained.
Digital inclusion: seeing who gets left behind
The conversation then shifts to equity, with a look at the Digital Exclusion Risk Atlas (DERA) from NHS England and the Care Equity Evidence Hub from SCIE.
These tools are about visibility — helping systems understand where people may struggle to access digital services, whether due to connectivity, affordability, or confidence.
As Katie puts it, “You can’t fix what you can’t see.”
The Digital Exclusion Risk Atlas brings multiple indicators together into a single picture, making it easier to identify where support is most needed. Meanwhile, the Care Equity Evidence Hub pulls together fragmented research into something more usable for decision-makers.
The underlying message is that if digital care is going to work for everyone, it has to be designed with inequalities in mind from the start — not as an afterthought.
Palantir and the question of trust
The episode then turns to the growing controversy around Palantir and the NHS Federated Data Platform.
At the heart of the discussion is evidence. “If the benefits are overstated,” Michelle says, “the whole business case starts to wobble.”
The concerns are explored in two pieces from The BMJ:
The case against Palantir: new questions on the science and independence
Palantir: NHS pilot’s “success” is questioned
There are questions about whether improvements linked to the platform were actually the result of post-Covid recovery, rather than the technology itself. There are also concerns about conflicts of interest and the independence of decision-making.
But again, this goes beyond technical detail. “This isn’t just about data,” Katie says. “It’s about whether people trust how that data is being used — and by who.”
For a sector already navigating public scepticism, that’s significant. And as the podcast highlights, if trust is fragile in the NHS, it may be even more so in social care, where infrastructure and oversight are less developed.
The challenge isn’t just building systems. It’s building legitimacy.
Scaling social care records
The episode also highlights Scaling Digital Social Care Records: The case study by Alice Ainsworth, reflecting on what it really takes to scale digital records across the sector.
It’s a timely reminder that progress isn’t just about adoption targets — it’s about the conditions that make meaningful, safe use of data possible in practice.
And finally… cyber squirrel
In true CTRL + Care style, the episode closes with something unexpected — the “cyber squirrel” moment.
This week, it’s the story of a paralysed musician using brain implants to create music, reported in A paralyzed musician is using a brain implant to create music. By translating neural signals into sound, he’s able to perform again — not just as rehabilitation, but as creative expression.
It’s a reminder that technology isn’t only about efficiency or risk. It’s also about possibility.
As Katie reflects, it raises important questions about “who technology is for — and how much agency people have in shaping it.”
The bigger question
Across all these stories, one question keeps surfacing:
If data-driven care depends on trust, what does it take to protect it?
Because whether it’s research datasets, national platforms, or local care records, the answer will shape what comes next.
View all News