Andi Assess
AI-generated draft
Independent living assessment report
General independent living review: detected activity, room-area patterns and overnight routine
Detected activity in the home reduced over the five weeks, and the reduction was concentrated in bathroom-area and kitchen-area activity rather than spread evenly; bedroom-area activity showed no clear change, and overnight bathroom-area activity remained frequent throughout.
Assessment at a glance
RAG shows priority for professional review. Confidence shows the strength of the observation.
Amber
Moderate confidence
Daily activity levels and movement around the home
Detected activity and movement between areas stepped down after the opening week and then drifted gently lower, rather than falling suddenly a...
Amber
Moderate confidence
Where activity was detected: bathroom, kitchen and bedroom areas
Rather than a uniform reduction, detected activity redistributed between the monitored areas: comparing the first and last 12 days, the bedroo...
Amber
Moderate confidence
Overnight pattern, evening concentration and morning timing
The overnight picture is one of regularly interrupted overnight periods with frequent bathroom-area activity on almost every night, a busy str...
Amber
Moderate confidence
Home environment and device reliability context
The household-wide cooling and reduction in light across the same weeks offers a neutral partial explanation for lower detected activity, so t...
Grey
Low confidence
Areas and signals this installation cannot assess
Because time out of the home, living-room activity and appliance use are all invisible here, a reduction in detected activity in the three mon...
Red prompt review ·
Amber discuss or check ·
Green no notable adverse change identified ·
Grey not assessable or not reportable
- Service-user reference
- 2f11c4f9-11e9-4ab8-b270-019fce0d0dc6_20260908_155730
- Assessment period
- 1 August 2026 to 6 September 2026 (Europe/London), 37 requested calendar days. Usable data was present on all 37 days, with 36 complete local 22:00-06:00 overnight windows and 2 partial boundary windows.
- Generated
- September 11, 2026
Assessment finding
Daily activity levels and movement around the home
Amber
Moderate confidence
What was detected
- Across all 37 days with usable data, an average of about 123 detected activity periods and about 85 changes between monitored areas were recorded per day; daily totals ranged from 75 on 15 August to 228 on 5 August.
- Detected daily activity fell from about 155 episodes a day in the first 12 days to about 105 a day in the final 12 days, with the same downward direction at every window tested; using a mid-August baseline that excludes the unusually busy 5 to 7 August days, the reduction is about 10%.
- The weekly averages locate most of that change early in the period: about 167 detected activity periods a day in the first full week, about 118 in the second, then a slower drift to about 101 in the week beginning 31 August.
- Movement between monitored areas reduced in the same way and in the same direction at every window tested, from about 125 changes of area per day in the first week to about 67 per day in the final week.
- Long daytime gaps without detected activity were uncommon: gaps of three hours or more occurred on 4 of 37 days, the longest being about 5 hours 24 minutes on 1 August, and they did not become more frequent later in the period.
01
Pattern identified
Detected activity and movement between areas stepped down after the opening week and then drifted gently lower, rather than falling suddenly at the end of the period. The size of the change depends on the comparison chosen: the busiest three days fell in the opening week, so a comparison starting from them shows a larger reduction than one starting in mid-August, while the bathroom-area reduction is present either way. This may be consistent with a quieter, more settled daily pattern, and it should be explored alongside what was happening for the individual during August.
02
Why this may matter
- Changes in support arrangements, visitors, holidays, appointments or time spent out of the home can all reduce detected in-home activity without any change in the individual's abilities.
- Indoor temperatures and light levels fell across every monitored room over the same weeks, so part of the reduction may reflect ordinary seasonal change in how the home is used.
- The comparison is between windows inside a single five-week period, which is a short basis for describing a longer-term direction.
03
What to explore
- Was there any change in the individual's health, routine, support or time away from home during the first half of August?
- Does the individual or their family recognise the quieter pattern seen from the second week onwards as usual for them?
What the data cannot tell us
The data shows detected events only; it cannot establish why activity reduced, or whether the individual's abilities changed., Absence of a detected event does not prove that an activity did not happen., and Sensor continuity and like-for-like coverage between the earlier and later windows have not been independently verified.
Assessment finding
Where activity was detected: bathroom, kitchen and bedroom areas
Amber
Moderate confidence
What was detected
- Bathroom-area activity reduced most of the three monitored rooms: about 47 detected periods a day in the first 12 days against about 22 a day in the final 12 days, with the same direction at every window tested and a reduction of about 31% still present when the busy opening week is excluded from the baseline.
- Minutes with detected bathroom-area activity fell in the same direction, from about 176 a day in the first 12 days to about 79 a day in the final 12 days.
- Kitchen-area activity reduced more moderately, from about 58 detected periods a day in the first 12 days to about 38 a day in the final 12 days.
- Minutes with detected kitchen-area activity fell from about 248 a day in the first 12 days to about 150 a day in the final 12 days.
- For the bedroom area, no clear sustained change was identified: episode counts and minutes gave different directions depending on the comparison window, with the later days slightly higher than all preceding days at most scales, in contrast to the falls in bathroom-area and kitchen-area activity.
01
Pattern identified
Rather than a uniform reduction, detected activity redistributed between the monitored areas: comparing the first and last 12 days, the bedroom area rose from about 31% to about 40% of all detected room activity, the bathroom area fell from about 33% to about 26%, and the kitchen area stayed at roughly a third. A shift of this kind may be consistent with more time spent in one area and fewer short trips between areas, and it may matter because kitchen-area and bathroom-area activity are often used to think about daily self-care routines.
02
Why this may matter
- Detected room-area activity is not the same as a visit to the room, an activity completed there, or the total time spent there, and the area with most detections should not be treated as the individual's main room.
- Fewer detected bathroom-area periods could reflect many different things, including a changed routine, different washing or toileting patterns, support from another person, warmer weather earlier in the period, or time spent elsewhere; the data cannot distinguish between them.
- The reduction was not explained by sensors reporting less: all six activity-classified streams continued to report in both comparison windows, and overall daily telemetry volume was almost unchanged (about 1,977 against about 1,921 events per day) while activity-classified events fell by about a third.
03
What to explore
- Has anything changed in how the individual manages washing, toileting or preparing food and drink since the middle of August?
- Is anyone else now assisting with meals or personal care, or is the individual using another room or place for these activities?
What the data cannot tell us
Only bathroom, bedroom and kitchen areas have movement and presence sensors, so activity elsewhere in the home is not represented in these proportions., The evidence cannot determine what the individual was doing in any area, or whether a task was completed., and Episode-based counts depend on how detections are grouped into periods, so small differences between rooms should not be over-interpreted.
Assessment finding
Overnight pattern, evening concentration and morning timing
Amber
Moderate confidence
What was detected
- Across 36 analysed nights, overnight bathroom-area activity averaged about six periods per night, with three or more on 35 nights, a range of 2 to 12 per night, and no clear directional change across the period.
- The longest nightly period without detected activity averaged about 2 hours (median about 1 hour 44 minutes, shortest 54 minutes), and no clear sustained change was identified because comparisons pointed in different directions depending on the window used.
- First detected morning activity averaged 04:52, which is already very early, and moved earlier through the period, from about 05:04 in the first 12 days to about 04:25 in the final 12 days, with wide day-to-day variation from 04:00 (1 and 4 September) to 07:26 (16 August).
- Detected activity was concentrated in the 22:00 hour, the busiest hour of the day across the period (330 activity periods, about nine a day) and present on every one of the 37 days, followed by very little detected activity in the 23:00 hour; the average time of the last evening activity was 23:12.
01
Pattern identified
The overnight picture is one of regularly interrupted overnight periods with frequent bathroom-area activity on almost every night, a busy stretch of activity around 22:00, and morning activity that starts very early and became earlier still. Taken together this may be consistent with a long day that begins before dawn, and it is the pattern most likely to affect how rested and supported the individual feels; it should be explored alongside the individual's own description of their nights and any continence, pain, thirst or medication factors.
02
Why this may matter
- Overnight movement and periods without detected activity describe detections only; they are not evidence about sleep, waking or sleep quality.
- Frequent overnight bathroom-area activity has many possible explanations, including fluid intake, continence, medication timing or discomfort, and none can be identified from this data.
- Very early first-morning activity should be checked against the individual's usual habits and preferences before it is treated as a concern.
03
What to explore
- How does the individual describe their nights and their early morning starts, and would they like anything to change?
- Is there a health, continence or medication factor that could be relevant to getting up several times most nights?
What the data cannot tell us
The evidence can describe overnight activity and periods without detected activity but cannot confirm sleep, waking, sleep quality or restorative sleep., Continuous sensor availability was not confirmed in any of the 38 intersecting overnight windows, so quiet periods may reflect sensor behaviour as well as the individual's activity., and Two overnight windows at the start and end of the period were only partly inside the assessment dates and are excluded from nightly figures.
Assessment finding
Home environment and device reliability context
Amber
Moderate confidence
What was detected
- Over the same first and last 12 days used for the activity comparisons, average indoor temperature was lower in every monitored room, by between about 1.3 and 2.1 degrees Celsius (bathroom about 22.9C to 21.6C, bedroom about 23.7C to 22.4C, kitchen about 24.4C to 22.6C, living room about 24.3C to 22.2C), and average light levels were lower in all three rooms with light sensors (kitchen about 1,151 to about 645, bathroom about 397 to about 237, bedroom about 220 to about 165). This household-wide pattern is consistent with ordinary seasonal change and should be considered alongside the reduced activity.
- In the first 12 days, recorded indoor temperatures reached about 28.8C in the kitchen and about 28.3C in the living room; the later period was cooler, with a living-room maximum of about 25.8C.
- A small number of device status flags were recorded between 3 August and 5 September (kitchen 3 August, bathroom 10 August, bedroom 28 August and 5 September), together with two low-battery flags from a movable hub device on 20 and 28 August; these are a reason to continue treating sensor continuity as unverified when comparing periods.
01
Pattern identified
The household-wide cooling and reduction in light across the same weeks offers a neutral partial explanation for lower detected activity, so the behavioural findings above should not be read as a change in the individual alone. The warm spell in the first half and the occasional device flags are context for discussion and for keeping the sensor-continuity caveat in place, not findings about the individual.
02
Why this may matter
- Warmer indoor conditions earlier in the period may be worth a routine check on comfort, ventilation and access to drinks, without drawing any conclusion from this data.
- Device status and low-battery flags are a prompt to confirm the installation is working as intended before any future monitoring period is compared with this one.
- Environmental readings describe the home, not the individual, and cannot be used to infer behaviour.
03
What to explore
- Was the home comfortable during the warm spell in early to mid-August, and is ventilation or cooling an issue for the individual?
- Can the installer confirm that all sensors, including the hub, were working continuously across the period?
What the data cannot tell us
Temperature and light sensors report at intervals set by the devices, so averages reflect sampling as well as conditions. and The evidence cannot establish any link between environmental conditions and the individual's activity.
Assessment finding
Areas and signals this installation cannot assess
Grey
Low confidence
What was detected
- Detected room activity is available only for the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen areas: the living room has only temperature and battery reporting, there is no entrance sensor, and appliance usage sessions were not derived, so living-room activity, time spent out of the home and appliance use cannot be assessed and reduced detections in the monitored rooms may partly reflect activity in places the sensors do not cover.
- Because there is no front door or exit sensor in this dataset, the routine check on property exits per day could not be carried out; appliance-classified telemetry is present but usage sessions were not derived, so appliance use must not be read as no appliance use.
01
Pattern identified
Because time out of the home, living-room activity and appliance use are all invisible here, a reduction in detected activity in the three monitored areas can never be read on its own as a reduction in the individual's overall activity. This matters directly to the main findings above and is a key reason to treat them as prompts for discussion rather than conclusions.
02
Why this may matter
- If understanding time spent out of the home or use of kitchen appliances is important to the assessment, additional sensing or a different information source would be needed.
- Any professional conversation should establish where the individual actually spends their day, including rooms and places the sensors do not cover.
03
What to explore
- Where does the individual spend most of their day, and how often do they go out?
- Would coverage of the living room or entrance add value for future monitoring?
What the data cannot tell us
No conclusion at all can be drawn about property exits, living-room activity or appliance use from this dataset. and Suppressed appliance measurements were not used to support any finding in this report.