Milton Lodge Retirement Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 19 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

Milton Lodge Retirement Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 35 people. Care is provided in one adapted building across two floors. At the time of the inspection, 30 people were living in the service.

Who the service is for

Milton Lodge Retirement Home provides support to older people and people living with dementia.

Key findings

We carried out this inspection on 29 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this inspection to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People told us they felt safe living in the service. Safeguarding concerns were identified and reported appropriately, and staff understood how to escalate concerns. Leaders reviewed incidents and accidents to identify learning and improve practice. Risks to people’s safety were assessed, recorded and monitored.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment processes were in place. Staff received training, supervision and support appropriate to their roles and spoke positively about the support provided by managers. Comments included, “I feel very supported by the management team. They are approachable, friendly and easy to talk to, and I feel comfortable raising any questions or concerns with them” and “Managers have an open-door policy so they are there and always happy to listen.”

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service, with consideration given to their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. Policies and procedures were available to support staff in delivering safe and effective care. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met, and a variety of meals and drinks were available to reflect their preferences and dietary requirements.

People’s health and wellbeing were regularly monitored and reviewed. Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals to help ensure people received appropriate support and good outcomes. One health professional told us, “Communication is very good” and “The home is very good with timely responses to requests and staff are proactive in recognising changes or issues in residents requiring assessment.”

People were asked for their consent and supported to make decisions about their care. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the caring and compassionate nature of staff. During the inspection, we observed kind and respectful interactions that promoted people’s dignity, privacy and independence. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends and to have choice and control over their daily lives.

People received person-centred care and support tailored to their individual needs. However, some care plans and risk assessments required greater detail and consistency to ensure people’s preferences, routines and involvement were fully reflected. People and relatives told us they felt listened to and had opportunities to give feedback.

The service was generally clean and homely. However, some communal areas required refurbishment. Environmental safety monitoring and checks on facilities also required strengthening. The provider confirmed a programme of planned environmental improvements was in place and work was ongoing at the time of the inspection.

The provider had processes in place to support the safe administration of medicines. However, during the inspection we identified some concerns relating to the management of boxed medicines. Stock counts were not always accurate, and some medicines administration records (MARs) were unclear and difficult to follow. The management team responded promptly by carrying out an immediate investigation, meeting with staff responsible for administering medicines and introducing twice-weekly stock checks.

Leaders promoted a positive, inclusive and compassionate culture that placed people at the centre of the service. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team and described them as approachable and supportive. Governance systems were in place to monitor quality and drive improvement. However, some areas, such as medicines oversight, required further development. Leaders responded positively to feedback and demonstrated a commitment to continuous learning and improving outcomes for people.