How CHCs Worked
___________________________________________________________________________
Membership
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHCs in England usually had 18-24 members. Half nominated by the local council(s), one third ominated by local voluntary organisations though elections held for the purpose and the remaining one sixth  chosen by the Regional Office. In some instances where several CHCs  merged to cover a wider areas, there may, exceptionally, be more members.

 
Co-options
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHCs could co-opt members to the CHC or to its working groups or sub-committees ... up to one third of the membership of the group in question.

The NHS Executive's Guidance on the changes in the establishing arrangements for CHCs, issued with EL(95)142 stated that CHCs "should develop a protocol ideally incorporated into their Standing Orders, which details the eligibility criteria, selection procedure, and length of appointment, of co-options to its committees".

A standard protocol was drafted by ACHCEW which was available for CHCs to adopt or amend as they thought fit.

 
Full CHC meetings and working group meetings
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHCs had to meet in public at least every 3 months. In practice, most met more often. CHCs had Standing Orders to govern the conduct of meetings.

CHCs usually had a number of sub-committees or working groups, and all members  usually expected to serve on at least one sub-committee. CHCs varied a great deal in how they configured their sub-committees. Some examples:

·      By type of patient, e.g. women and children, acute, older people
·      By type of service, e.g. primary, acute, mental health
·      On an ad hoc basis, e.g. to oversee a current local issue or a CHC project

 
Reviews
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It was increasingly accepted as good practice that CHCs had some means of reviewing their work and discussing the objectives to inform their next year's work programme. CHCs, in some Regions, had developed protocols for peer review, while others varied their approach from year to year, often using an external facilitator to help them.

There was usually a general purposes or liaison/co-ordinating committee to bring together chairs of all sub-committees and the Chair and Vice Chair of the CHC.