This study investigates the efficiency of the Manchester Orthopaedic Database (MOD), a computer software package for record collection and audit. Data is entered into the system in the form of diagnostic, operative and complication keywords. We have calculated the completeness, accuracy and quality (completeness x accuracy) of keyword data in the MOD in two departments of orthopaedics (Departments A and B). In each department, 100 sets of inpatient notes were reviewed. Department B obtained results which were significantly better than those in A at the 5% level. We attribute this to the presence of a systems coordinator to motivate and organise the team for audit. Senior and junior staff did not differ significantly with respect to completeness, accuracy and quality measures, but locum junior staff recorded data with a quality of 0%. Statistically, the biggest difference between the departments was the quality of operation keywords. Sample sizes were too small to permit effective statistical comparisons between the quality of complication keywords. In both departments, however, the poorest quality data was seen in complication keywords. The low complication keyword completeness contributed to this; on average, the true complication rate (39%) was twice the recorded complication rate (17%). In the recent Royal College of Surgeons of England Confidential Comparative Audit, the recorded complication rate was 4.7%. In the light of the above findings, we suggest that the true complication rate of the RCS CCA should approach 9%.