Reviewing and Refreshing Committee Terms of Reference in Adult Social Care

February 5, 2026

Committee terms of reference should never be treated as static documents. In adult social care, services, risks and regulatory expectations evolve continuously, meaning governance arrangements must be reviewed and refreshed to remain effective. Well-designed board roles, committees and terms of reference are a core component of credible governance and leadership, because they define how oversight adapts to change rather than becoming detached from day-to-day reality.

Why outdated terms of reference weaken governance

Outdated terms of reference often look acceptable on paper but fail in practice. Common warning signs include:

Committees discussing issues that no longer align to their stated remit.
Overlap or gaps between committees following organisational growth.
Escalation routes that do not reflect how risks now emerge.
References to roles, services or regulations that no longer exist.

These weaknesses become visible during commissioner assurance reviews, internal audits and CQC inspection, where leaders are expected to explain not just structures, but how those structures stay relevant.

When committee terms of reference should be reviewed

Best practice is to schedule a formal review of all committee terms of reference at least annually. However, additional reviews should be triggered by specific events, including:

Service expansion, acquisitions or new service lines.
Significant changes in commissioning arrangements.
Adverse inspection outcomes or safeguarding themes.
Material workforce or financial instability.
Regulatory or legislative change affecting accountability.

Linking reviews to real organisational change ensures governance evolves alongside operations.

What a meaningful review process looks like

Refreshing terms of reference should be a structured governance exercise, not a desktop edit. An effective review process usually includes:

Mapping current committee activity against stated remit.
Identifying duplication, gaps or unclear accountability.
Testing escalation routes using recent real incidents.
Checking alignment with board risk appetite and strategy.
Confirming consistency across all committees.

Importantly, the review should involve committee chairs and key executive leads, not just governance administrators.

Operational example 1: Growth exposes governance gaps

Context: A provider expanded from residential services into supported living. Committee terms of reference still reflected a residential-only operating model, with limited focus on community risk, lone working or complex tenancy issues.

Support approach: A full review mapped new operational risks against existing committee remits. The Quality Committee’s terms were updated to explicitly include community safeguarding, tenancy sustainment risks and interface with housing partners.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Agendas were revised to include supported living-specific dashboards. Escalation triggers were clarified so emerging tenancy risks were reported earlier to the board.

How effectiveness is evidenced: Governance discussions became more relevant, actions more targeted, and the provider could clearly explain oversight arrangements to commissioners during contract reviews.

Operational example 2: Inspection feedback drives ToR refresh

Context: A CQC inspection identified inconsistent oversight of restrictive practices. While a committee existed, its terms of reference did not explicitly cover authorisation governance or reduction planning.

Support approach: Terms of reference were refreshed to include explicit accountability for restrictive practice governance, including approval routes, review frequency and reduction oversight.

Day-to-day delivery detail: A standing agenda item was introduced, supported by a standard report covering use, review dates, rationale and reduction activity. Clear reporting lines to the board were embedded.

How effectiveness is evidenced: Follow-up inspection activity recognised improved clarity of oversight and leadership assurance.

Operational example 3: Workforce risk clarified across committees

Context: Workforce risks were discussed inconsistently across finance, quality and operational forums, leading to fragmented oversight and slow escalation.

Support approach: Terms of reference were refreshed to clarify ownership: workforce capacity and capability oversight sat with the Quality Committee, while financial impact and sustainability remained with Finance and Risk.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Workforce metrics were split clearly between committees, with defined escalation thresholds to the board where service continuity was at risk.

How effectiveness is evidenced: Decision-making improved, duplication reduced, and the provider could demonstrate coherent governance to commissioners.

Embedding refreshed terms of reference into practice

Refreshing terms of reference is only effective if changes are embedded. Providers should ensure:

Committee chairs formally sign off revised terms.
Members receive a briefing on what has changed.
Agenda templates are updated to reflect new responsibilities.
Annual governance reviews test whether ToRs are being followed.

Commissioner expectation

Commissioners expect governance structures to remain aligned to service delivery, risk and commissioning context, with evidence that committees evolve as services change.

Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC)

CQC expects governance arrangements to be effective, current and responsive, with clear evidence that oversight structures reflect the realities of care delivery.

What to evidence for assurance

Providers should retain:

Version-controlled terms of reference with review dates.
Board minutes approving refreshed ToRs.
Examples of agenda and reporting changes.
Links between refreshed ToRs and improved outcomes.