For Care Providers
A practical framework for care home managers considering a structured pilot of a companion or communication robot, from scoping through to evaluation.
A care robot pilot is not simply a matter of trialling a new piece of equipment. It involves consent, care plan updates, staff preparation, regulatory awareness and a disciplined evaluation process. Done well, a pilot gives you genuine evidence on which to base a procurement decision. Done poorly, it creates risk and produces no useful information.
This post sets out a practical framework for care home managers who are beginning to think seriously about running a pilot. It covers what good preparation looks like, the consent process for residents, what CQC will expect to see, and how to measure outcomes honestly.
The most common mistake in care technology evaluation is starting with a device rather than a problem. Before contacting any robot provider, the management team should be able to answer three questions clearly.
What specific problem are you trying to address? Examples include residents who become distressed during evening hours when staffing is reduced, residents who rarely receive family visits and show signs of social withdrawal, or residents in a dementia unit who benefit from structured sensory engagement but whose needs outpace available staff time. The clearer the problem statement, the easier it is to design a meaningful pilot and evaluate outcomes.
What would a successful outcome look like, and how would you measure it? If the problem is social isolation, a successful outcome might be that residents who interact with the device show measurable changes on a validated loneliness or wellbeing scale, or that staff observations recorded in care plans indicate reduced distress. If you cannot describe a measurable outcome in advance, the pilot will produce anecdotes rather than evidence.
What is your realistic implementation capacity? A pilot requires a member of staff to coordinate it, time to train the team, a process for monitoring resident responses, and someone responsible for data collection. If you do not have this capacity at the time of the pilot, the results will be unreliable and the experience will be frustrating for staff and residents alike.
In the UK care setting, the devices most commonly used in pilots are companion and communication robots: screen-based or small stationary units that can hold conversations, support video calls with family members, deliver reminders and provide entertainment. These are distinct from ambulatory humanoid robots, which are not deployed in UK care homes at scale and are not appropriate for a care setting pilot at this stage of the technology's development.
When evaluating providers, ask for documented evidence of prior UK care home deployments, not just demonstration videos or reference customers from other sectors. Ask what data the device collects, where it is stored, whether any voice or image data leaves the building, and what the provider's data processing agreement looks like under UK GDPR. In a care home, data about residents may be special-category health data; the lawful basis for processing and the safeguards in place need to be clear before you introduce any device that records interaction.
Ask about the support model. In a 24-hour care environment, a device that develops a fault at the weekend needs a clear resolution path. What does the provider's maintenance and support contract include? What is the response time for a non-functioning unit? These practical questions are as important as the device's features.
Our guide to choosing assistive robots for a care setting covers supplier evaluation questions in more detail.
Every resident who interacts with the pilot device needs to be covered by an appropriate consent process, documented in their care plan. This is not optional; it is a basic safeguarding and dignity obligation, and it is what a CQC inspector will look for if the pilot comes to their attention.
For residents who have capacity to consent to this specific decision, the process is a straightforward informed consent conversation. Explain what the device is and does, that participation is voluntary, that they can choose to stop at any time without any effect on their care, and that any interaction with the device may be logged by the provider. Record the outcome of this conversation in the care plan.
For residents who lack capacity to make this specific decision under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a best interests decision is required. This means consulting people who know the resident well, considering whether the resident would have wanted to participate based on known wishes and values, and weighing any potential benefit against any potential distress or harm. The decision and the reasoning behind it must be documented. Capacity is decision-specific; do not assume that a resident who lacks capacity for financial or medical decisions therefore cannot consent to using a companion device. Assess individually.
Family members should be informed that a pilot is taking place and given the opportunity to raise concerns. This is good practice regardless of whether the resident has capacity; it builds trust and avoids the situation where a family member discovers a robot in their relative's room without any prior communication from the home.
Staff attitudes significantly influence whether a care robot pilot succeeds or fails. If the care team is not comfortable with the device, they will be reluctant to encourage residents to use it, they may respond to technical issues with frustration rather than problem-solving, and they may give biased observations in any evaluation. This is not a criticism of staff; it reflects normal human responses to unfamiliar technology introduced without adequate preparation.
Before the pilot begins, hold a staff briefing that covers what the device does and does not do (correct any misconceptions clearly), the purpose of the pilot and what will be measured, individual staff roles during the pilot, and what to do if a resident shows signs of distress in relation to the device. Give staff an opportunity to interact with the device before it is introduced to residents.
Not all residents will take to the technology, and not all will be suitable participants. Staff need clear guidance on when to disengage a resident from the device and how to record that decision.
A pilot of eight to twelve weeks gives residents time to adjust and produces enough data for a meaningful evaluation. Shorter pilots tend to capture initial novelty responses rather than settled patterns of use. Set a fixed evaluation date before the pilot begins.
Decide in advance how you will collect data. Validated wellbeing scales (Dementia Care Mapping or the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, depending on the resident group) provide a structured framework if you have the staff capacity to use them. Care plan observations are a minimum requirement in any case. Consider brief weekly staff notes on individual resident responses; these provide a qualitative record that complements any quantitative measure.
At the end of the pilot, review the evidence against the success criteria you defined at the outset. Be honest. If the evidence shows that residents who interacted with the device showed no measurable change, say so. A negative result is useful information: it tells you either that this device does not address the problem you identified, or that the problem was different from what you thought. Both conclusions have value.
A positive result warrants careful interpretation too. Was the change attributable to the device, or to the additional staff attention that the pilot itself generated? Would the benefit persist over a longer period? These are the kinds of questions a good evaluation should prompt.
There is no notification requirement to CQC before running a companion device pilot. However, if a CQC inspector visits during or after the pilot, they may ask about it. The documentation you need to be able to produce is: the consent records for participating residents, any best interests decision documentation, updated care plans, the staff briefing record, and a brief written account of the pilot's purpose and outcomes.
A clear paper trail showing that the pilot was introduced thoughtfully, with resident dignity and consent at its centre, will satisfy a CQC inspector's interest. The absence of documentation is a more significant problem than the pilot itself.
Our guide on CQC regulation and robots in care homes covers the regulatory framework in detail.
If you are beginning to evaluate robot or companion device options for your care setting, or if you have a specific operational question about running a pilot, write to hello@humanoidrobotcare.co.uk with a brief description of your setting and what you are trying to achieve. We respond to all genuine enquiries personally.
Send an enquiryCommon questions
A meaningful pilot for a companion or communication robot in a care home typically runs for eight to twelve weeks. Anything shorter does not allow time for residents to adjust to the technology or for staff to build confidence in using it. Anything longer without a defined evaluation point risks the pilot drifting into permanent deployment without proper assessment. Set a fixed end date at the start and stick to it.
There is no requirement to notify CQC before introducing a companion device or communication robot as part of a care home pilot, provided the device is not a medical device and is not being used to deliver or record clinical care. You should, however, be able to demonstrate to a CQC inspector that the pilot was introduced safely: that resident consent was obtained, that individual care plans were updated, that staff were trained, and that you have a clear process for monitoring resident wellbeing in relation to the technology.
For residents with capacity to consent, the process is an informed consent conversation: explain what the device is, what it does, that participation is voluntary, and that the resident can stop at any time without it affecting their care. Record this in the care plan. For residents who lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, a best interests decision is required, consulting people who know the resident well and documenting the decision and reasoning. Capacity is decision-specific; assess individually for each resident.