tive in terms of what you’re putting down… Why didn’t I do long-term fostering and I was really happy with my foster carer who I’d been with since birth and then you moved me? I know it’s further explanations for later on, but I don’t think young people’s lives should be put down to a tick in a box.” (Practitioner) Some practitioners were concerned about the wording and the connotations associated with some data items. It was acknowledged that often items are added to local forms which require additional data that may not be relevant to some children or young people. This raises issues about quality and version control on forms. There is a need to review these added items and ensure they remain relevant over time: “A few years ago we had a number of young people self-harming and it came out of some review or some discussion and, therefore, it was put into a form but…if a young person accesses their records down the line and they see this, they’re going to think, ‘well, I never self-harmed, why would that be in there?’ Why is there just an assumption that all children looked after self-harm?” (Practitioner) In addition, ‘scrutiny’ over a child’s life was questioned and who needs to know what information. In a child’s review, all the paperwork is on the table for all professionals to see but some practitioners felt that this is not always necessary and in referring to their own life and private business stated: “We wouldn’t have that much scrutiny in our lives. We wouldn’t allow it.” (Practitioner). A sense of accountability towards children, young people, and families was evident in the wider findings about the way the data is collected and how it is recorded: “They’re their children and they should have a copy of the plan and they should have a copy of the minutes. We a