TECHNOLOGY & SOFTWARE
roles elsewhere. It is reasonable to ask whether social care could follow, particularly in a sector that oſten feels undervalued.
Underneath this sits a question of worth. If part of the job can be done by a machine, does that diminish the skill involved? Those concerns deserve respect rather than dismissal.
FEARS FROM PEOPLE DRAWING ON CARE AND FAMILIES
People drawing on care and their families also have their own views on carebots.
For some families, assistive robotics can feel reassuring. A device that supports safe transfers or prompts medication may increase confidence that their relative is supported consistently. In situations where staffing is stretched, the idea of additional support can bring comfort.
Some people are very excited about autonomous carebots – who can help them with. direct care on their own schedule, not at the mercy of the care company's availability.
For others, the presence of a robot can feel impersonal. There may be a fear that human contact will be reduced, that meaningful interaction will be replaced with mechanical efficiency. People drawing on care may have mixed reactions. Some may find social robots engaging. Others may experience them as infantilising or intrusive.
Consent and choice are central. Introducing robotics changes the texture of care. Decisions about their use must involve transparent conversations about purpose and limits.
WHAT ROBOTS CANNOT PROVIDE
The limits of robotics become clearer when we consider what care actually involves.
Care is not only about liſting safely or delivering reminders. It is about noticing subtle changes in mood, sensing when someone is withdrawing, understanding family dynamics and navigating complex emotional landscapes. It involves judgement, empathy and accountability.
A robot can follow programmed parameters. It cannot genuinely understand embarrassment, grief or fear. It cannot carry legal or moral responsibility. And of course, they are expensive and major investment – financially and culturally – for any care provider.
A MORE BALANCED WAY FORWARD
The evidence suggests that robotics in UK social care remains cautious and limited. Large-scale replacement of carers is not taking place. Instead, robots are being explored as tools to address specific challenges, particularly physical strain and capacity pressures.
This does not remove the need for vigilance. Poor implementation could undermine trust. If robotics were introduced as a substitute for meaningful human contact, resistance from staff and families would be justified.
The more constructive question is how robotics can be integrated without eroding the relational foundation of care. That requires involving care workers in decision making, listening carefully to people drawing on care and their families, and being honest about both benefits and limits.
19
www.tomorrowscare.co.uk
Social care remains, at its heart, a human endeavour. Robotics may assist with certain tasks, but they do not replace compassion, presence or responsibility. If the sector holds onto that principle, the conversation shiſts from fear of replacement to thoughtful collaboration.
https://www.digitalcarehub.co.uk/event/robots-vs-carers-replacing-in-person-care-workers-with-tech/
Find out more. Join Digital Care Hub’s Robots vs Carers webinar on 31 March 2026, 12 – 1.30pm
www.digitalcarehub.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34
