d complete.” (Practitioner) Furthermore, practitioners felt that due to the wording of some questions, they do not always understand what information they are required to collect for specific data items. The design of the form and the order of the questions asked within the same form do not flow naturally, often not making sense to practitioners. Some suggested more guidance on what and how to write in these data fields. For example, data item 219 ‘Does the child have a care plan?’ is collected as part of the pathway plan. Some practitioners said they never understood this question because it is within the pathway plan. In general, children have a care plan until they are 16 years old, and then they have a pathway plan. The question does not logically flow as part of the pathway plan, so these practitioners do not answer this question. It is also unclear to practitioners why the LA collects this information. Practitioners and data consumers expressed that the wording of forms needs to be reviewed as in places it can be misleading and not clear about the information that is required. The wording and guidance to accompany questions could be made clearer which would support the right information being elicited and, in turn, prevent duplication: “Then you have the next item as young person’s views. Again, it’s a little misleading. Views about what? About the worker contacting them or is it about a specific issue? So this form, again, can be actually rejigged. So something similar like, this is a visit, this is what happened, we discussed and 41 DfE Project 2A: User research into social worker inputted data to CMS this is our analysis of what we did exactly because that’s why some workers put a lot of details, get it right. Some workers are now putting just one line [of] dat