Guide 10
Deploying companion or assistive robots in a CQC-registered care setting creates regulatory considerations that care home managers need to understand. This guide covers how CQC's quality standards apply to technology deployment, what consent and safeguarding obligations apply, and how to document decisions correctly.
The Care Quality Commission does not, at the time of writing, have a specific regulatory policy on companion robots or assistive technology in care homes. However, CQC's existing quality framework and fundamental standards apply fully to how technology is deployed in a regulated setting. A care home that deploys a companion robot without thinking through the regulatory implications could find itself with concerns on a CQC inspection, even if the technology itself is well-intentioned.
This guide sets out the regulatory considerations in plain language. It is written for care home managers, operations directors, and care commissioners deploying or planning to deploy companion or assistive robot technology.
This guide is general information, not legal or regulatory advice. For specific compliance questions, consult a qualified legal adviser or your regulatory body directly. CQC guidance and regulation evolve; always check current CQC publications rather than relying solely on third-party summaries including this one.
CQC regulates care homes in England against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, enforced through inspection against five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led? Technology deployment in a care setting is assessed against these same standards. There is no exemption or separate framework for technology.
The safe domain requires that residents are protected from abuse, harm, and avoidable injury. For technology deployment, this has several implications. The device must not present a physical safety risk to residents: no trip hazards, no components that a resident might ingest or injure themselves on, no failure mode that could cause harm. Where a device has connectivity, the data security of that connectivity must be assessed; an inadequately secured device that could be accessed remotely represents a safeguarding risk.
The safe domain also covers safeguarding from abuse and improper treatment. A device that monitors residents, collects audio or video, or in any way records their private behaviour without appropriate consent processes in place raises a safeguarding concern. CQC inspectors will ask whether safeguarding policies have been updated to address technology, and whether staff know how to identify and respond to concerns involving technology.
The effective domain requires that care is based on evidence and best practice, achieves good outcomes, and meets residents' needs. A care home deploying companion robots should be able to articulate what evidence supports the use of this technology for its specific resident cohort, how deployment decisions are made and reviewed, and what good outcomes look like for this group. Deploying technology without a clear rationale tied to resident needs and an honest outcome measurement approach is inconsistent with the effective domain.
The caring domain covers dignity, respect, and person-centred care. This is the domain most directly and obviously relevant to companion robot deployment. CQC inspectors will look at whether residents are treated as individuals with their own preferences and decisions respected, whether technology is deployed in a way that maintains dignity, and whether residents' emotional wellbeing is understood and supported.
The caring domain would be breached by: requiring residents to interact with companion devices against their wishes; using companion technology as a substitute for meaningful human interaction in a way that reduces the overall quality of care; deploying technology that a resident finds distressing without addressing that response; or making deployment decisions without considering individual residents' preferences.
The responsive domain requires that care is organised around people's needs and preferences. For technology, this means individual assessment of whether and how technology is appropriate for each resident, with clear processes for accommodating preferences, updating those assessments as needs change, and responding to complaints about technology.
The well-led domain covers governance, culture, and management. A well-led care home deploying technology will have a clear policy on its use, will have risk-assessed deployment, will have a governance process for reviewing technology-related incidents or complaints, and will be able to demonstrate to an inspector that technology choices are made thoughtfully and reviewed regularly.
Consent is the most critical compliance area for companion robot deployment in a care setting. Getting consent wrong is a serious regulatory risk and, more fundamentally, a harm to residents.
A resident with mental capacity must give informed consent to the introduction of a companion device in their room or to their care. Consent must be voluntary (not pressured), informed (the resident understands what the device does, including what data it collects), and ongoing (the resident can withdraw consent at any time). Consent should be documented in the care plan. A verbal consent conversation that is not recorded is inadequate for a CQC inspection.
A resident who declines to use a companion device, or who later decides they no longer want it, has the right to have it removed without that decision affecting any other aspect of their care. This must be made clear to residents and to their families.
Where a resident lacks mental capacity to consent to the use of a companion device, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies. A best-interests decision must be made, following the statutory process: presume capacity unless established otherwise; support the person to make their own decision as far as possible; involve those who know the person; consider the person's known past wishes, values and preferences; and act in the person's best interests, not the care home's operational convenience.
Best-interests decisions regarding companion technology must be documented in the care plan, recording who was consulted, what the person's known preferences were, and what the reasoning was for proceeding or not proceeding. These decisions should be reviewed as the person's condition and circumstances change.
The Mental Capacity Act assessment process cannot be bypassed by assuming a resident "won't mind" or "will benefit" without following the proper procedure.
Companion robots and assistive devices typically collect personal data. In a care home setting, this data handling falls under UK GDPR, the Data Protection Act 2018, and potentially under additional frameworks where health-related data is involved.
If a device records conversations that reveal health status, disability, or other special-category information, or if it monitors activity or behaviour in ways that reveal health or wellbeing information, the data collected may be special-category data under UK GDPR. Processing special-category data requires both a lawful basis under Article 6 of UK GDPR and an appropriate condition under Article 9 and Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 2018. This is a higher compliance threshold than for general personal data.
Care homes should discuss with their data protection officer, or seek legal advice, on how to classify and lawfully process data collected by companion devices in their specific context.
Where the companion device vendor processes personal data on behalf of the care home (storing interaction data on their servers, providing analytics, facilitating family communications), the vendor is a data processor and a signed Data Processing Agreement (DPA) is a legal requirement under UK GDPR Article 28. A care home deploying any technology that processes resident data without a signed DPA in place is non-compliant.
The DPA must specify what data is processed, for what purposes, with what security measures, for how long, and in what locations. Cross-border data transfers (data stored on servers outside the UK) require additional safeguards.
The care home's privacy notice must be updated to explain what data is collected by companion technology, why, and how it is processed. Residents and their families are entitled to this information. A privacy notice that was drafted before any technology was deployed, and has not been updated to reflect it, is non-compliant.
Technology deployed in a care setting must be assessed against the care home's safeguarding policy and procedures. Several specific safeguarding scenarios are worth considering.
The substitution risk: as discussed in our ethics guide, the use of companion technology to justify reducing human staffing or activities provision is the most significant safeguarding concern in this area. A care home that uses technology as a reason to cut human contact is creating conditions for harm. This risk should be addressed explicitly in the safeguarding risk assessment for any technology deployment.
Unexpected distress: some residents, particularly those with dementia or significant anxiety, may react to a companion device with confusion or distress. Care home staff must be trained to recognise and respond to these reactions and must have a clear protocol for removing a device from use for a specific resident who responds negatively.
Data and privacy intrusion: devices that record voice or video in a resident's private space, without that resident fully understanding this, represent a potential breach of privacy that could constitute a safeguarding concern if it involves a vulnerable adult. The consent and information processes described above are the mitigation.
Family concerns: families who have concerns about how technology is being used in their relative's care should have a clear route to raise those concerns, and those concerns should be taken seriously and investigated. Dismissing a family concern about a companion robot on the grounds that "the technology is fine" is not an adequate response.
A care home deploying companion or assistive technology should have the following documentation in place and be able to produce it during a CQC inspection.
None of this documentation is onerous to produce if the deployment has been thoughtfully designed from the outset. The challenge is for care homes that have deployed technology reactively, without working through these considerations first. If that is your situation, it is worth completing this documentation retrospectively and ensuring the processes it describes are genuinely in place.
This guide primarily addresses the CQC regulatory framework, which applies to care homes in England. Care homes in Wales are regulated by Care Inspectorate Wales; in Scotland by the Care Inspectorate; and in Northern Ireland by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). The specific regulatory frameworks differ in detail, but the core principles of consent, dignity, person-centred care, and data protection apply in all UK jurisdictions. Providers in devolved nations should consult their relevant regulator's guidance directly.
If you are a care home manager or commissioner with questions about the regulatory dimensions of companion or assistive robot deployment, write to us at hello@humanoidrobotcare.co.uk. We provide information and can connect you with specialists in care regulation and technology governance.
Our ethics and dignity guide and our procurement guide cover complementary aspects of responsible deployment.
Common questions
At the time of writing, CQC does not have a specific regulatory policy or inspection framework dedicated to companion robots or assistive technology in care homes. However, CQC's existing fundamental standards and five key questions -- safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led -- apply fully to all aspects of care, including how technology is deployed. There is no exemption for technology. A care home deploying companion robots must be able to demonstrate, under those existing standards, that consent processes are in place, that individual residents' preferences are respected, that the technology does not compromise dignity, and that governance and documentation are adequate. CQC guidance and regulation evolve; providers should consult current CQC publications rather than relying solely on third-party summaries.
A care home using companion or assistive robots should have several documents ready for a CQC inspection: a technology use policy covering consent processes, data handling, and staff training requirements; individual care plan entries for each resident offered or using the technology, documenting the consent decision or Mental Capacity Act best-interests decision; a risk assessment covering physical, data, and safeguarding risks; a signed Data Processing Agreement with the device vendor; an updated privacy notice covering data collected by the technology; staff training records; and evidence of how the technology's impact on resident wellbeing is monitored. None of this is excessive or difficult to produce when deployment has been thoughtfully designed from the outset.