ul to the next practitioner and the decision-making that follows. Practitioners are therefore held accountable for decisions made supported by data they did not record. This can lead to a process of over-recording for fear of leaving something out. Indeed, data consumers recognise that social workers might take it on themselves to over-record, but they also acknowledge the risk factors that practitioners carry if they omit any information: 44 DfE Project 2A: User research into social worker inputted data to CMS “Staff have become so wound up in this recording culture, they feel like they need to record everything for safeguarding of their own position - but it’s more beneficial for people to record important information. The things the social worker writes could cause distress if the child reads it. The social worker is deemed to be a superhero and pulls all the strings of a child's life.” (Data consumer) The workflow Three of the participating LAs use the same CMS, but they have been set up differently and are therefore used in different ways. Although no usability testing, reviews or accessibility testing were carried out during the research, practitioners reported problems using their organisation’s CMS. Many issues were reported, including confusing workflows and not being able to update a case or complete a task if somebody else was inputting to the same case. The interface was also described as not being accessible, which impacts decision-making. In addition, practitioners felt pressured to meet often tight timelines: “It [CMS] is really confusing, … if you're relying on someone else finishing something before you can do your bit that causes problems ... If something's not completed like a midpoint report in the middle…then the wrong decisions will pull through to