language so children and young people can understand what was written about them should they access their records  Practitioners record information in different ways, and some include more details than others. Therefore, consistency of what is recorded and examples of what ‘good’ looks like in terms of capturing data is missing  Two audiences (practitioners and data consumers) require data to be collected for different purposes. Overall, practitioners prefer qualitative data to provide a contextual understanding (without burden), whilst data consumers also need quantitative data for statutory and other returns. Both data types are required, and the quantitative data identifies areas to drill down into the qualitative data for further exploration as needed  Capturing the context of meetings with children and young people can be difficult when it is largely collected through a series of closed questions, drop-down lists and scoring questions  Although no usability testing, reviews or accessibility testing were carried out during the research, practitioners reported problems using their organisation’s CMS. Many did not believe it is user centred, with confusing workflows and an inaccessible interface. This often makes routine tasks time consuming, causing pressure and frustration which lead to low morale  Practitioners reported that at times the forms can redirect the conversation and not focus on the issue for that child/young person at the time. Against a backdrop of high caseloads and tight deadlines, this has been reported as burdensome by some practitioners. This has implications for best use of practitioner time No item was considered not helpful to record by practitioners in their work with children and families, rather specific data items are considered useful