gies that we have to do. It doesn't manually populate it. There's a box that you can tick which says to add case notes and things like that to chronologies. It doesn't work, it’s not fit for purpose. We have to write the case notes and then do a separate thing. I input separate information to the chronology section and even the way to do that is a longer process.” (Practitioner) 43 DfE Project 2A: User research into social worker inputted data to CMS With regard to the auto-population of some data items, data consumers acknowledged the tensions between reducing the burden for practitioners and the need for management to request more data to ensure the items are sufficiently scrutinised. Indeed, some auto-populated data items are intended to ensure practitioners carry out the necessary duties without burden. An example includes the question ‘Has the child been given a copy of the complaints leaflet?’ The data reported by practitioners is intended to meet both their frontline needs and the needs of those consuming the data for performance management, local strategic decision-making, or national reporting purposes. Whilst practitioners want more contextual information, the data consumers need some data that the practitioners do not. Discrepancy about the level of data required In the interviews, data consumers suggested the likelihood that social workers over-record information and therefore record too much due to fear of leaving something out. In other cases, some practitioners record far less. Data consumers regard this as an issue which needs addressing as they want to see the right and appropriate level of information including practitioner reflections. However, practitioners worried about their professional reputation with regard to how they record data. Some reflecte