Nursing Practice Meets Research

The workshop was deliberately designed as a participatory event. The focus was not on a lecture about robotics, but rather on a collaborative exchange: nursing staff, facility directors, digitalization managers, and individual representatives from the fields of science and technology shared their perspectives, everyday experiences, and critical questions. Participants were thus not viewed as the target audience for a presentation, but as active contributors to a shared learning process.

The evening began with a keynote presentation by Prof. Dr. Hans Böhme of HTWD, which provided an overview of the current state of research on robotics and assistive technologies in nursing care, thereby laying the groundwork for the subsequent table discussions. The centerpiece of the evening was the World Café: Four tables, each with a guiding question, invited participants to discuss the topics in rotating small groups. After each round, participants switched tables so that, over the course of the evening, everyone had the opportunity to engage with the topics from all four tables. At the end, the key insights were compiled and reflected upon in a joint plenary session.

Insights from the Field: What the Workshop Revealed

The workshop yielded nuanced insights into the attitudes, experiences, and needs of nursing practice regarding the use of robotics and digital technologies.

The discussion at Table B made it clear that there are areas in which the use of robotics and digital assistance is fundamentally rejected. The central question was: What should technology not be allowed to do? The participants agreed that wherever physical closeness, pastoral care, or individual human dignity are directly involved, clear ethical boundaries must be drawn. At its core, care is a human relationship—characterized by empathy, trust, and connection. This quality cannot and should not be replaced by machines. Technology was consistently viewed as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, human care. The group took a particularly critical view of social robots in end-of-life care, as well as sensor-based monitoring systems, which are perceived as an intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of those in need of care.

Real-world experiences have been mixed but insightful. Some facilities are already reporting positive effects from digital care documentation, electronic calendar tracking, and AI-powered writing aids. In some cases, sensor mats and emergency call bracelets are already part of the standard equipment. When technology works, two factors are crucial: individual adaptation to residents’ needs and reliable 24-hour user support. When technology fails, it is rarely due to the technology itself—but rather to a lack of training for all staff and a lack of structural integration. The result is often silent resistance: systems are introduced but avoided in everyday practice. The group agreed: the integration of technology into care is not a technical project, but rather one of organizational and cultural change.