Guide: For Providers
A practical framework for care home managers, care directors, and commissioners evaluating assistive and companion robots for a UK care setting. What to assess, what to ask suppliers, and how to run a responsible pilot.
Interest in assistive and companion robots among UK care providers is growing, driven by workforce pressures, growing awareness of deployments in other settings, and increasing media coverage. For a care home manager or commissioner at the point of serious evaluation, the challenge is not finding enthusiasm for the technology. It is finding reliable, practical, UK-specific guidance on how to evaluate it responsibly.
This guide is written for that audience. It covers the questions to ask before committing to any deployment, the UK regulatory context that shapes what responsible use looks like, how to design and run a pilot, and how to evaluate whether the technology is actually working in your setting.
Editorial note: this guide provides general information and a practical framework. It does not constitute legal, regulatory, or clinical advice. Care providers should seek appropriate professional advice on regulatory, data protection, and procurement matters relevant to their specific circumstances.
The starting point for any technology evaluation in care is not "what technology is available" but "what problem am I trying to solve, for whom, and how will I know if I have solved it." This sounds obvious, but the care technology market contains many solutions in search of problems, and it is easy to be drawn in by demonstrations of impressive-looking devices before establishing whether they address a genuine need in your setting.
The most common drivers among care homes currently evaluating companion and assistive robots in the UK include: reducing resident social isolation, particularly during night hours or periods when staffing is lower; improving family connection for residents who struggle to use standard communication devices; providing structured engagement for residents living with dementia; and supporting independence for residents with specific communication or daily-living needs.
These are legitimate needs. The question is whether the specific technology you are evaluating addresses them better than alternatives, what it costs relative to those alternatives, and whether the evidence that it will work in your setting is sufficient to justify the investment and the change-management effort.
Before speaking to any supplier, write down your answers to these questions. What specific resident outcomes would success look like? How would you measure them? Over what time period? Who would be responsible for monitoring them? What would tell you the deployment had not worked and should be reviewed or ended? These criteria are the foundation of a responsible evaluation. A supplier who is reluctant to discuss measurable outcomes is worth treating with caution.
The assistive and companion robot market in the UK care sector covers a range of devices at different price points and with different capabilities. Clarity about what category of technology you are considering is essential.
These are currently the most widely deployed category in UK care settings. They are typically screen-based units, sometimes on a wheeled base, that can hold conversations, support video calls, deliver reminders, and provide entertainment. They are controlled by AI and connected to a cloud platform. UK providers with reported deployments in care settings include Service Robotics with its GenieConnect device and Cera with its Genie AI droids. These devices do not perform physical care tasks.
These include robotic pets and devices such as the PARO therapeutic robot, designed primarily for emotional engagement and calm, particularly for people living with dementia. They are distinct from communication robots in that they are designed for tactile and emotional interaction rather than conversation or task support. The evidence base for therapeutic companion devices in dementia care is more developed than for most other categories.
Devices that assist with physical tasks such as mobility support or transfer exist in research and early commercial settings. These are not widely deployed in UK care homes at the time of writing, and they carry a different and more complex regulatory and clinical risk profile than companion devices. If you are considering a device in this category, specialist advice is essential before any pilot.
Full ambulatory humanoid robots capable of performing general care tasks are not currently deployed in UK care homes. Supplier demonstrations and media coverage of these devices often show capability in controlled conditions that does not translate to the complexity and unpredictability of a real care environment. Do not make procurement decisions based on a supplier's roadmap for future capability. Evaluate the device that exists today, in the version available to you now.
When you move to direct supplier conversations, the following questions are reasonable and appropriate. A credible supplier should be able to answer all of them clearly.
Care providers in England are regulated by the Care Quality Commission. The CQC assesses services against key quality statements relating to being safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led. The deployment of assistive technology, including companion robots, is not outside the scope of CQC inspection. A CQC inspector may reasonably ask about how technology is used in your setting, how consent is managed, and how the technology relates to the care needs of residents.
The CQC has not, at the time of writing, issued specific mandatory guidance on companion or assistive robots. However, the general principles of its regulatory framework apply. Technology should be deployed in ways that maintain and enhance resident dignity, safety, and wellbeing. It should not be used as a substitute for adequate staffing. Consent and best-interests processes should be documented. If in doubt about how a specific deployment relates to your CQC registration, seek advice from a care sector regulatory specialist before proceeding.
Equivalent regulatory bodies operate in Wales (Care Inspectorate Wales), Scotland (Care Inspectorate), and Northern Ireland (RQIA). Their frameworks may differ in specific requirements.
Any device that collects, processes, or transmits data about residents is subject to UK GDPR. Resident health and care data is special-category data under UK GDPR, requiring explicit consent or another specific lawful basis. Before deploying any connected device in a care setting, you must: understand exactly what data it collects; have a lawful basis for that processing; inform residents and their representatives appropriately; and have a data processing agreement with the supplier. If the deployment involves any data that might be considered health data or data revealing a disability, consider whether a Data Protection Impact Assessment is required. Your Data Protection Officer, if you have one, should be involved before any deployment.
Consent to the use of a companion or assistive robot with a resident is not a tick-box exercise. It is a meaningful safeguarding requirement. The process should reflect the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and your setting's existing consent frameworks.
For residents with capacity, informed consent should be obtained before a device is introduced to their care. They should understand what the device is, what it will do, and that they can choose not to use it or to stop using it at any time without affecting other aspects of their care. Consent should be recorded in the care plan.
For residents who lack capacity to consent, a best-interests decision should be made under the Mental Capacity Act, involving people who know the resident well, including family members where appropriate, and taking into account the resident's known preferences and values. This decision should be documented. Family members who hold lasting power of attorney for health and welfare should be included in the decision.
For residents with fluctuating capacity, the approach should be flexible and documented. If a resident who previously consented later expresses reluctance or distress in response to the device, that should be treated as a signal to review the deployment for that individual.
A structured pilot is the right way to introduce companion or assistive robots into a care setting, particularly for the first deployment. It allows you to gather evidence specific to your residents and your environment, manage risk, and make an informed decision about whether to proceed, without committing to a full deployment prematurely.
Start small. A pilot with four to eight willing residents, carefully selected on the basis of assessed suitability and properly obtained consent, is more informative than a large deployment. Define the pilot period clearly, typically eight to twelve weeks. Assign a named staff lead for the pilot who is responsible for monitoring resident responses and maintaining a deployment log.
Define your outcome measures before the pilot begins. These might include observed changes in resident engagement or agitation, staff-reported observations of resident response, family feedback, and any operational metrics such as staff time spent on facilitation. Record baseline measures before the devices are introduced, so you have something to compare against.
Document consent processes and any incidents or concerns throughout the pilot. If any resident shows signs of distress in response to the device, act on that immediately. The resident's wellbeing takes priority over the pilot timeline.
At the end of the pilot period, review your outcome measures against baseline. What did you observe? Were there residents for whom the device was clearly beneficial? Were there residents for whom it was neutral or unhelpful? What did staff find about the operational burden of managing the device? What did families say? What did the data show?
A good pilot report should be honest about results in both directions. If the evidence is mixed or the benefit is marginal, that is the right conclusion to draw. Do not allow sunk-cost thinking or supplier enthusiasm to override a clear-eyed assessment.
UK care providers evaluating companion robots are likely to encounter three main commercial structures.
A capital purchase gives you ownership of the device and may have lower long-term cost, but requires up-front expenditure, and you bear the risk if the device is discontinued or the supplier ceases trading. Software updates and support may be charged separately.
A lease arrangement spreads the cost over time and typically includes maintenance and support. It may include a buyout option at the end of the term. Carefully review what happens if the device becomes obsolete or the product is withdrawn during the lease period.
Robot-as-a-Service (RaaS) is a subscription model in which you pay a monthly or annual fee for the device and all associated support, updates, and maintenance. This reduces up-front cost and operational risk, but means ongoing commitment. Review the exit terms carefully: what notice period is required, what happens to your data on termination, and are there penalties for early exit?
For most care homes evaluating this technology for the first time, a RaaS or short-term pilot agreement carries less risk than a capital purchase. It allows you to exit if the technology does not deliver the expected benefit in your setting, without writing off a capital investment.
If you need to build a business case for deploying companion robots in your setting, whether for a board, a group management team, or a commissioning body, the following framework is useful.
State the problem clearly: what resident need or operational challenge are you addressing? Be honest about the evidence for the technology's effect on that need. Quantify costs fully: device cost plus staff time for deployment and management, training, and any infrastructure required. Quantify benefits as concretely as possible: reduced agitation incidents, improved family satisfaction scores, staff time redirected from facilitated social activities, or measurable changes in resident quality-of-life indicators. State the risks clearly: what could go wrong, and what is the mitigation? State your evaluation plan: how will you know after twelve months whether this was a good decision?
A business case that honestly acknowledges uncertainty and builds in evaluation will be more credible and more useful than one that overstates the expected benefit to secure approval.
If you are at the research or planning stage of evaluating assistive or companion robots for your care setting and would like to discuss your options, write to us at hello@humanoidrobotcare.co.uk. We provide independent information and introductions to UK providers; we are not a regulated care or legal advisory service.
Our For Providers page gives an overview of how we work with UK care providers and commissioners.