e at the moment?’)  the same information is collected in more than one form (for example: item 11 ‘Address’) This was further explained in the qualitative data: “The plan is reviewed every six months. The review is every six months, they don't always marry together at the same time, which is fine. But if I'm doing one form, I would hope that one form marries into the other forms... so that I'm not having to duplicate... when we're so rushed and we're holding such a high case volume.” (Practitioner) Data consumers agree that the system could potentially pull certain information through (such as ethnicity, name, gender) and should be on the child or young person's front screen. Some data consumers propose that there are reasons why there is duplication in the system. They suggested that practitioners should avoid cut-and-paste activity and avoid feeling that they need to input a response to every question if it is unnecessary: “Auto populated - saves time. They are ignored, quality is not scrutinised, children's addresses are populated but not updated if moved... [this includes] wrong characteristics… What purpose does it serve? It's blank, they aren't even seeing the details. Every form doesn't have to say all these details.” (Data consumer) Practitioners reported burden in the need to reiterate the same information at each visit. Some spoke about the case of long-term placements where certain data was irrelevant to continuously collect. For example, constantly recording the name, age and ethnicity of the child or young person every time: 40 DfE Project 2A: User research into social worker inputted data to CMS “I just think if it’s long term and this is their home why are we doing [entering] everything?” (Practitioner) Data consumers understood frustrations with forms a