Milford House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 31 March 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 11 and 12 March 2026. Milford House provided accommodation, personal care and treatment of disease, disorder or injury to 58 people at the time of the assessment. The service can support up to 71 people who are over and under 65 years and have physical disabilities.

Care plans were personalised and had details of people’s needs and preferences, information about risks to people’s safety was also recorded with guidance for staff to follow. If people needed monitoring this was completed in line with guidance in risk management plans. The service had moved care records to an electronic care planning system where everything was recorded and stored. This meant staff could access records easily in a timely way and the provider had oversight for governance checks.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had training on administering medicines and there were policies on how to order, store, administer and dispose of medicines safely. Staff worked with various healthcare professionals and had made referrals in a timely way. There was effective communication amongst the staff and daily meetings for leaders.

Staff had been recruited safely, and staff received an induction when starting work and regular training and support. Systems were established to provide staff support with wellbeing.

Health and safety checks were completed regularly including fire safety. The service was clean and well maintained and staff had cleaning schedules and a system to report any faults. The service was accessible and people had good access to outside space.

Accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and actions identified for learning. The provider shared any learning from events and incidents with all of their services. Staff had opportunity to use reflection to talk about what had gone wrong and what they would do differently. There was a new registered manager in post, who was supported by the provider and a regional director completed regular visits. Governance systems were effective in identifying areas for improvement and monitoring compliance.