Andi Assess

AI-generated draft

Independent living assessment report

Independent living sensor review: daily routine, movement and overnight patterns, 12 August to 6 September 2026

Across the 26 days with usable data, the overall level of detected activity in the monitored areas was broadly stable, but where that activity was detected appears to have shifted: bathroom-area activity fell steadily while kitchen-area activity time rose. No clear change was identified in overnight patterns. The most important caution is that the installation can only describe two rooms, so this is a partial picture of daily living.

Assessment at a glance

RAG shows priority for professional review. Confidence shows the strength of the observation.

Amber Moderate confidence

Bathroom-area activity

Bathroom-area activity reduced gradually and consistently across the period, with detected time falling proportionally more than the number of...

Green Moderate confidence

Kitchen-area activity

Kitchen-area activity remained consistently present throughout the period and, if anything, occupied more of the day later on, mainly in the e...

Amber Moderate confidence

Movement around the home and daily routine

The daily rhythm was recognisable and repeated throughout the period, with early mornings, a clear morning peak and a clear evening peak. With...

Amber Low confidence

Overnight and early morning patterns

The night-time picture is of long periods without detected activity, a consistently very early start to the day and a late last detected activ...

Grey Low confidence

Areas and activities that cannot be assessed

The installation describes a narrow slice of daily living. Time spent in the lounge or main bedroom, going out, and use of appliances are all ...

Red prompt review · Amber discuss or check · Green no notable adverse change identified · Grey not assessable or not reportable

Service-user reference: 8e44c295-e37b-4c73-8fad-fdcf3889040e_20260908_170859
Assessment period: Requested period 1 August to 6 September 2026 (37 days). Usable data covers 26 days from 12 August to 6 September 2026; the first ten requested days contain no telemetry at all.
Generated: September 13, 2026

Executive summary

A general review of independent living sensor data was requested, with no specific focus or additional background supplied. The purpose of this report is therefore to describe what the available home sensor data does and does not show about the individual's day-to-day routine, movement around the monitored areas and overnight patterns, and to identify what a practitioner may wish to explore next.

This report describes 26 days with usable data, from 12 August to 6 September 2026. The first ten requested days contain no telemetry, so the review covers under four weeks rather than the full requested period.

Bathroom-area activity reduced consistently: daily activity periods fell from about 45 to 40 per day between the first and second halves of the usable period, and averaged about 34 per day over the final five days. The reduction was concentrated in the afternoon and evening, with morning activity broadly unchanged.

The time of detected bathroom-area activity fell further than the number of activity periods, from about 205 to 181 minutes per day between the two halves of the period, and to about 134 minutes per day across the final five days.

Movement between the two monitored room areas was lower in every comparison window used, from about 62 to 54 changes per day between the halves of the period, and about 47 per day over the final five days. This measure covers only the kitchen and bathroom areas.

Kitchen-area activity moved in the opposite direction, with daily detected minutes rising from about 232 to 271 between the halves of the period, although three unusually high days at the end of August contributed substantially and the most recent five days were not above the earlier average.

First detected activity in the morning was typically very early, averaging 04:43 and ranging between 04:00 and 06:46, with no clear directional change across the period. The measure cannot record a first activity earlier than 04:00.

On 11 of the 26 days there was a daytime period of two hours or more with no detected activity anywhere monitored, most often between late morning and mid-afternoon; the longest was about 4 hours 38 minutes on 6 September.

Changes over time

Total detected activity across the two monitored areas was broadly similar between the halves of the usable period (about 113 falling to 110 activity periods per day, a change of around 2%), although the final five days averaged lower at about 100 per day. The direction of this result therefore depends on the comparison window chosen.
The weekly view gives the same picture: the three full weeks of data averaged about 109, 111 and 105 activity periods per day, with the higher figure of 123 covering only five days at the start of the record, so the overall level was broadly steady.
Counting positive detections by location rather than by derived activity periods, detections in the bathroom area fell (about 120 to 103 per day) while kitchen-area detections rose (about 176 to 191 per day) and stair-area detections remained broadly similar. This supports a change in where activity was detected rather than a general reduction in activity.
Over the same period, indoor temperatures fell by about two degrees Celsius in every monitored location (for example, the bathroom from about 23.7 to 21.7 and the kitchen from about 24.7 to 22.4), a home-wide seasonal change that coincides with the shift in where activity was detected and should be considered alongside it.
No clear change was identified in the number of kitchen-area activity periods per day, which averaged about 69 across the period, or in the longest nightly period without detected activity.

Overall interpretation

The pattern most worth discussing is the steady reduction in afternoon and evening bathroom-area activity alongside stable or higher kitchen-area activity, which may be consistent with a change in daily routine, in where time is spent, in personal care habits, or with the cooler indoor temperatures recorded across the whole home over the same weeks; the available evidence cannot determine which. The most important limitation is scope: room-level measures exist only for the kitchen and bathroom, there is no door, exit or appliance sensing, the lounge has no activity sensor, the worn device contributed no usable values, and continuous sensor operation was not confirmed for any overnight window, so an apparent reduction in one area cannot be separated from activity moving to an unmonitored area or from a sensor performance change. The most useful next step is to check with the individual and anyone supporting them whether anything changed in late August or early September, and to confirm that the bathroom sensor has been working as expected.

Assessment finding

Bathroom-area activity

Amber Moderate confidence

What was detected

Bathroom-area activity averaged about 42 activity periods and 193 minutes of detected activity per day across the 26 usable days, with a typical period lasting about four minutes.
Both the number of daily activity periods and the daily minutes of detected bathroom-area activity were lower in every comparison window tested: activity periods fell from about 45 to 40 per day between the halves of the period and to about 34 per day in the final five days, while minutes fell from about 205 to 181 and then to about 134, a larger proportional fall than in the number of activity periods.
Comparing the first 13 days with the last 13 days, the reduction sat mainly in the afternoon (212 to 176 activity periods) and evening (144 to 126), while morning activity was almost unchanged (207 to 198).

Pattern identified

Bathroom-area activity reduced gradually and consistently across the period, with detected time falling proportionally more than the number of activity periods, and with the change concentrated in the afternoon and evening. This may matter because it represents a sustained shift in one part of the daily routine rather than a single unusual day, and because it sits alongside stable or increased kitchen-area activity.

Why this may matter

Changes in bathroom-area activity can reflect many things, including altered daily routine, changes in personal care, time spent elsewhere in or away from the home, or a change in sensor performance; the data cannot distinguish between these.
Indoor temperatures in the bathroom and every other monitored location fell by around two degrees Celsius over the same weeks, so a seasonal change in washing or cooling habits is one of several possibilities that cannot be ruled in or out.
Detections at the bathroom sensor reduced over the same period, so it would be sensible to confirm the sensor's position and working condition before treating the change as behavioural.
The afternoon and evening concentration may be worth checking against any change in visiting support, appointments or activities during late August.

What to explore

Has anything changed in the individual's afternoon or evening routine since the end of August?
Has the bathroom sensor been checked, repositioned or affected by anything in the room during this period?

What the data cannot tell us Detected room-area activity is not the same as using the bathroom or completing personal care, and the number of detections does not measure how well an activity was carried out., Like-for-like sensor coverage between the earlier and later parts of the period has not been independently verified., and The available evidence cannot determine why bathroom-area activity reduced.

Assessment finding

Kitchen-area activity

Green Moderate confidence

What was detected

Kitchen-area activity averaged about 69 activity periods and 252 minutes of detected activity per day, with a typical period of about two minutes.
Daily minutes of detected kitchen-area activity were higher in the later part of the period, rising from about 232 to 271 minutes between the halves, though three consecutive high days from 29 to 31 August (365, 360 and 358 minutes) contributed substantially and the most recent five days were not above the earlier average.
No clear change was identified in the number of kitchen-area activity periods per day, which averaged about 69, and the direction of change differed depending on the window compared.

Pattern identified

Kitchen-area activity remained consistently present throughout the period and, if anything, occupied more of the day later on, mainly in the evening. Taken together with the reduction in the bathroom area and broadly steady detections at the stairs, the evidence is more consistent with activity being distributed differently around the home than with an overall reduction in activity.

Why this may matter

Detected kitchen-area activity does not confirm that meals or drinks were prepared or consumed; there is no appliance or fridge-use analysis available in this evidence pack to corroborate it.
The three high days at the end of August may reflect a particular occasion or visitor and are worth checking rather than assuming a lasting change.

What to explore

Does the individual describe spending more time in the kitchen during the evening, and is eating and drinking going well?
Was anything different about 29 to 31 August, such as visitors or a change in routine?

What the data cannot tell us Detected kitchen-area activity is not proof of meal preparation, nutrition or hydration. and The increase in detected minutes is sensitive to which comparison window is used and is influenced by a small number of high days.

Assessment finding

Movement around the home and daily routine

Amber Moderate confidence

What was detected

Movement between the two monitored room areas averaged about 58 changes per day and was lower in every window compared, falling from about 62 to 54 per day between the halves of the period and to about 47 per day over the final five days. Only kitchen-area and bathroom-area activity is included in this measure.
Total detected activity periods per day changed little between the halves of the period (about 113 to 110), although the final five days averaged about 100 per day, so the direction depends on the window chosen. Positive detections at the stair sensors, which are not included in the room-area measures, did not show a matching fall.
Detected activity followed a consistent daily shape, with very little between 22:00 and 03:00, a rise from around 04:00 to 05:00, a morning peak around 08:00 to 09:00 and an evening peak around 18:00 to 19:00.

Pattern identified

The daily rhythm was recognisable and repeated throughout the period, with early mornings, a clear morning peak and a clear evening peak. Within that stable rhythm, alternation between the kitchen and bathroom areas reduced. Because this measure only counts changes between those two areas, the reduction is closely linked to the fall in bathroom-area activity rather than being independent evidence of reduced mobility.

Why this may matter

Movement between monitored areas is only counted between the kitchen and bathroom areas in this dataset, so it is not a general measure of mobility around the home.
Stair-area detections continued at a similar level throughout, which should be weighed against any interpretation that the individual became less mobile.
Time of day patterns are consistent with a settled routine, but the data cannot indicate how easily or safely any movement was achieved.

What to explore

Does the individual or anyone supporting them report any change in mobility, confidence on the stairs, or in how the day is structured?
Would direct observation or a functional assessment add useful context to the reduced alternation between the kitchen and bathroom areas?

What the data cannot tell us Movement counts are derived only from kitchen-area and bathroom-area activity, so movement involving other parts of the home is not represented., The size of the change in total activity depends on the comparison window used and is small across the full period., and Passive sensing cannot describe walking quality, balance, falls risk or effort.

Assessment finding

Overnight and early morning patterns

Amber Low confidence

What was detected

Across 26 analysed nights, overnight bathroom-area activity averaged 1.5 periods per night but was very uneven: none was detected on 15 nights, while six nights had three or more, including nine on 17 August and six on each of 31 August and 1 September. These higher nights were scattered across the period rather than forming a trend.
The longest nightly period without detected activity averaged about 6.5 hours (median 384 minutes, shortest 235 minutes) and showed no clear directional change; it could only be derived for 20 of the 26 analysed nights.
The first detected activity of the day averaged 04:43 and ranged from 04:00 to 06:46, with no clear directional change, and the measure cannot record a first activity earlier than 04:00. The final evening activity averaged 23:13.

Pattern identified

The night-time picture is of long periods without detected activity, a consistently very early start to the day and a late last detected activity in the evening, alongside a small number of nights with repeated bathroom-area activity. The early start and late finish together describe a short window at night with little detected activity, which may be worth discussing with the individual in terms of how rested they feel.

Why this may matter

Overnight activity and quiet periods describe detected events only; they cannot confirm sleep, waking, sleep quality or how restorative the night was.
The nights with repeated bathroom-area activity may be worth exploring alongside hydration, medication timing, comfort or any unsettled nights the individual recalls.
The earliest first-activity time the measure can record is 04:00, so genuinely earlier starts would not be distinguished.

What to explore

How does the individual describe their sleep and their very early morning start?
Were the nights of 17 August, 31 August and 1 September different in any way the individual or those supporting them can recall?

What the data cannot tell us Continuous sensor availability was not confirmed in any of the 38 overnight windows that intersect the assessment, so an absence of overnight detections cannot be treated as evidence of undisturbed rest., A nightly quiet-period value could be derived for only 20 nights, so the overnight picture is incomplete., and Overnight measures relate only to the monitored areas; there is no activity sensing in the lounge and only limited detection in Bedroom 1.

Assessment finding

Areas and activities that cannot be assessed

Grey Low confidence

What was detected

Activity-classified detections came from eight locations, but room-level activity measures could only be produced for the kitchen and bathroom areas; stairs, Bedroom 1, Bedroom 2 and the fridge contact are not represented in the room or movement measures.
There is no door or exit sensor, so leaving and returning to the property cannot be assessed, and no appliance telemetry was identified. The lounge has no activity sensing and produced only a connectivity signal, and Bedroom 1 produced only a small number of vibration-based detections.
The worn device recorded no positive activity values at any point in the period and its other readings did not vary, so it provides no usable information about mobility or rest.

Pattern identified

The installation describes a narrow slice of daily living. Time spent in the lounge or main bedroom, going out, and use of appliances are all outside what this data can show, which means an apparent reduction in one monitored area may simply reflect time spent somewhere the sensors cannot see.

Why this may matter

If understanding time out of the home or use of the lounge is important to the assessment, additional sensing or direct information gathering would be needed.
A worn device is present but contributed no usable values, so it should not be relied on as corroboration of activity, walking or rest.

What to explore

Would adding entrance or living-room sensing meaningfully improve future reviews for this individual?
Is the worn device being used as intended, and is it working?

What the data cannot tell us Average property exits per day could not be checked because no front door or exit telemetry exists in this dataset., No appliance telemetry was identified, so appliance use cannot be assessed., and Absence of a detected event does not prove that an activity did not occur.

Potential anomalies

Patterns for closer review

3 September 2026 was flagged by the deterministic screening as falling below the expected day-to-day range for this period, with 74 detected activity periods against an expected range of about 79 to 143. It was also the lowest day for bathroom-area activity (22 periods, 91 minutes) and kitchen-area minutes (179). Telemetry was received throughout that day from eight locations, so this is not explained by an obvious data outage, and two separate daytime gaps of over two hours occurred that day.

A day spent largely out of the home, or largely in an area without activity sensing such as the lounge, would produce a similar pattern.
A quieter day through choice, tiredness or feeling unwell would also be consistent with the data, and the evidence cannot distinguish between these.

Question for review Is anything known about 3 September 2026 that would explain a markedly quieter day in the monitored areas?

On 11 of the 26 days there was at least one daytime period of two hours or more with no detected activity anywhere monitored, typically between late morning and mid-afternoon; the longest was about 4 hours 38 minutes on 6 September, and the deterministic evidence pack records a longest daytime gap of 277 minutes.

Regular midday absences from the monitored areas may be consistent with going out, or with time spent in the lounge or bedroom where activity is not detected.
Because there is no exit sensing, the data cannot distinguish being out of the property from being in an unmonitored room.

Question for review How does the individual usually spend late mornings and early afternoons, and does this involve being out of the home or in the lounge?

Review and limitations

Professional review

Questions for professional review

Has anything changed for the individual since late August that might explain less afternoon and evening bathroom-area activity alongside stable or greater kitchen-area activity?
Can the bathroom sensor's position and working condition be confirmed, so that the reduction can be considered as a change in routine rather than a change in detection?
How does the individual describe their very early mornings and late evenings, and do they feel rested?
Would information about time spent out of the home, or in the lounge, materially change the interpretation of the regular midday periods without detected activity?

Quality warnings

Average property exits per behavioural day could not be checked because the evidence metric is unavailable.
10 assessment days contain no telemetry.
2484 in-period telemetry events retain an unknown classification.

Data limitations

Passive telemetry describes detected events and behavioural patterns; it cannot establish diagnosis, subjective experience, intention or causation.
The evidence can describe overnight activity and quiet periods but cannot confirm sleep, waking, sleep quality or restorative sleep.
Absence of a detected event does not prove that an activity did not occur.
The assessment contains 36 complete local 22:00–06:00 calendar windows and 2 partial boundary windows. Activity was observed in 26 complete windows. Continuous sensor availability was confirmed in 0 of 38 intersecting overnight windows.
Sensor installation continuity and like-for-like coverage across comparison periods have not yet been independently verified.

This AI-generated draft supports professional judgement and requires human review. It describes detected sensor events and patterns only; it does not diagnose, assess risk, determine eligibility or recommend care, and all findings should be considered alongside direct contact with the individual and other professional evidence.