Andi Assess
AI-generated draft

Independent living assessment report

General Behavioural and Daily-Living Evidence Report

Across 62 behavioural days, the individual's telemetry shows a home-centred pattern with bedroom and living room accounting for the largest occupied time, an average overnight longest quiet period of 112 minutes, and an average of 1.5094 overnight bathroom episodes per analysed night.

Assessment at a glance

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

Amber Moderate confidence

Overnight activity and quiet periods

Overnight periods were frequently interrupted by detected movement, with 39 of the analysed nights meeting the combined criterion of a longest...

Amber Moderate confidence

Bathroom use

Bathroom use was frequent and concentrated around a morning peak, with a modest increase across the period from 6.6 to 8.05 episodes per day.

Amber Moderate confidence

Movement and overall activity levels

Detected movement follows a daytime-weighted profile with morning and evening peaks, alongside a marked rise in daily episode counts from mid-...

Green Moderate confidence

Room occupancy and use of the home

Time within the property is concentrated in the bedroom and living room, with the hallway functioning as a brief transit space.

Amber Low confidence

Property exits and time away from home

Recorded absences appear only from 2026-05-14 onward, after which exits are frequent and substantial time is recorded away from the property, ...

Amber Low confidence

Routine consistency

Day start and end times varied widely while the broader shape of the day showed moderate similarity between consecutive days.

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

Executive summary

To examine overnight sensor patterns and wider daily-living telemetry, and to present approved behavioural evidence for professional consideration ahead of a scheduled Care Act review. This report does not determine eligibility, risk or care needs.

01
01

Overnight quiet periods were relatively short on many nights: the median longest quiet period was 95 minutes, the shortest was 8 minutes, and 39 of the analysed nights had a longest quiet period under 120 minutes or at least three bathroom episodes.

02

Overnight bathroom activity varied: 11 nights recorded three or more overnight bathroom episodes while 13 nights recorded none.

03

The average first morning activity time was 04:49 with a standard deviation of 56 minutes, and the average last evening activity was 23:24.

04

Daytime activity predominated over overnight activity, with a day-to-night room-episode ratio of 3.878735 and 27.1613 room transitions per behavioural day.

05

Bathroom episodes averaged 7.7903 per behavioural day with an average duration of 470 seconds; 83 episodes exceeded ten minutes and the longest was 2344 seconds.

Changes over time

  • Detected activity episodes rose from a baseline daily average of 16.6 (2026-04-20 to 2026-05-12) to 50.65 (2026-06-04 to 2026-06-23), recorded as an increasing direction with a 205.1205 percent change.
  • Bathroom episodes increased from a baseline daily average of 6.6 to 8.05, recorded as an increasing direction with a 21.9697 percent change.
  • Weekly detected activity episodes peaked at 587 in the week commencing 2026-05-25 and fell to 257 in the week commencing 2026-06-15 and 30 in the partial week commencing 2026-06-22.

Overall interpretation

The telemetry describes a person spending substantial time at home with fragmented overnight quiet periods, variable overnight bathroom activity and an apparent mid-period step change in detected activity and exits that may reflect sensor or configuration change rather than behaviour alone.

Assessment finding

Overnight activity and quiet periods

Amber Moderate confidence

What was detected

  • Across 53 analysed nights, the average longest quiet period was 112 minutes, the median 95 minutes and the shortest 8 minutes.
  • Overnight bathroom episodes averaged 1.5094 per night (80 episodes across 53 nights), with 11 nights recording three or more and 13 recording none.
  • Nightly longest quiet values ranged widely, for example 308 minutes on 2026-05-11 and 19 minutes on 2026-05-30.
01

Pattern identified

Overnight periods were frequently interrupted by detected movement, with 39 of the analysed nights meeting the combined criterion of a longest quiet period under 120 minutes or at least three bathroom episodes.

02

Why this may matter

  • Frequent short quiet periods may reflect movement in and around the bedroom, continence or comfort needs, or environmental factors, and should be interpreted alongside the individual's own account.
  • The pattern could indicate variability in night-time routine, but telemetry cannot confirm sleep, waking, sleep quality or sleep disruption.
  • Nights with no detected overnight bathroom episode may reflect absence from the property or non-detection rather than absence of activity.
03

What to explore

  • How does the individual describe their nights, and does this align with the observed pattern of short quiet periods?
  • Are there known reasons for night-time bathroom use that the individual or their supporters can describe?
  • Is any night-time support currently provided, and how is it experienced?
What the data cannot tell us Overnight movement and quiet periods are not proof of sleep, waking, sleep quality or sleep disruption. and Only 53 nights were analysed within a 91-day requested period, and 29 assessment days contain no telemetry (coverage:missing-days).

Assessment finding

Bathroom use

Amber Moderate confidence

What was detected

  • 483 bathroom episodes were recorded, averaging 7.7903 per behavioural day with an average duration of 470 seconds and a median of 408 seconds.
  • 83 episodes lasted longer than ten minutes and the longest single episode was 2344 seconds.
  • The most common hour for bathroom episode starts was the 08:00 hour, and daily counts ranged from 0 on 2026-04-25 to 17 on 2026-05-29.
01

Pattern identified

Bathroom use was frequent and concentrated around a morning peak, with a modest increase across the period from 6.6 to 8.05 episodes per day.

02

Why this may matter

  • Longer bathroom episodes may be consistent with personal care routines, mobility taking more time, or periods of rest, and cannot be attributed to any single explanation from telemetry.
  • The increase in daily episodes could indicate a change in continence, fluid intake or routine, and should be interpreted alongside health information held by the practitioner.
  • Days with zero recorded episodes may reflect missing telemetry or absence from the property rather than no bathroom use.
03

What to explore

  • Has the individual noticed any change in how often or how long they use the bathroom?
  • Are the longer episodes associated with washing or bathing routines, and is any support used?
  • Is there any health or medication context that a practitioner should weigh alongside this pattern?
What the data cannot tell us Episode durations are derived from persisted sensor episodes and do not describe what activity took place. and Absence of a detected event does not prove that an activity did not occur.

Assessment finding

Movement and overall activity levels

Amber Moderate confidence

What was detected

  • Room episodes averaged 44.7742 per behavioural day and room transitions averaged 27.1613 per behavioural day, with a day-to-night episode ratio of 3.878735.
  • Hourly episode counts peaked at 270 in the 08:00 hour and 205 in the 21:00 hour, with the lowest counts in the 13:00 hour (34) and 01:00 hour (39).
  • The longest recorded daytime gap between consecutive room episodes on the same day was 460 minutes.
01

Pattern identified

Detected movement follows a daytime-weighted profile with morning and evening peaks, alongside a marked rise in daily episode counts from mid-May onwards.

02

Why this may matter

  • The sustained rise in detected episodes may reflect genuine behavioural change, a change in who is present in the property, or a change in sensor detection, and cannot be attributed from telemetry alone.
  • Long daytime gaps may be consistent with time out of the property or with periods of rest in a location with limited sensor coverage.
  • Evening activity peaks may reflect established routine and should be interpreted alongside the individual's description of their day.
03

What to explore

  • Did anything change in mid-May in the individual's circumstances, household or equipment?
  • How does the individual describe their typical day, and does the morning and evening pattern match?
  • Are long daytime gaps explained by time out of the property or by activities in unmonitored areas?
What the data cannot tell us Sensor installation continuity and like-for-like coverage across comparison periods have not yet been independently verified. and 55757 in-period telemetry events retain an unknown classification (telemetry:unknown-classification), which may affect how detected activity is represented.

Assessment finding

Room occupancy and use of the home

Green Moderate confidence

What was detected

  • Bedroom occupancy averaged 404.3745 minutes per behavioural day and living room occupancy 258.6981 minutes, with bathroom at 60.9887 and hallway at 12.6973 minutes.
  • The hallway accounted for the largest share of room episodes (0.3588) with a median duration of 18 seconds, while the bedroom accounted for 0.1664 of episodes with a median duration of 1026 seconds.
  • The longest single bedroom episode was 36728 seconds and the longest living room episode was 17910 seconds.
01

Pattern identified

Time within the property is concentrated in the bedroom and living room, with the hallway functioning as a brief transit space.

02

Why this may matter

  • Extended bedroom occupancy may reflect night-time rest, daytime resting or preference for that space, and cannot be distinguished by telemetry.
  • The very long single episodes may be consistent with sustained presence or with periods where movement was too limited to generate new episodes.
  • No kitchen sensor data is represented, so meal preparation and nutrition-related activity cannot be described.
03

What to explore

  • Where does the individual say they spend most of their time, and is that by preference or necessity?
  • Is there any monitoring of kitchen or food preparation areas that could be discussed at the review?
  • Do the very long occupancy episodes correspond to known routines such as rest or television use?
What the data cannot tell us Average detected kitchen minutes per behavioural day could not be checked because the evidence metric is unavailable (validation:kitchen_minutes_per_day). and Room-level source trigger counts were not reportable and cannot be used to support any finding.

Assessment finding

Property exits and time away from home

Amber Low confidence

What was detected

  • 595 property absence episodes were recorded, averaging 9.5968 exits per behavioural day and 367.0806 minutes out of the property per behavioural day.
  • 22 behavioural days recorded no exit, the longest single absence was 775 minutes, and 15 absences lasted longer than six hours.
  • Daily exit counts were recorded as 0 on every behavioural day up to and including 2026-05-13 and then 14 on 2026-05-14, with later values such as 27 on 2026-05-29 and 0 on 2026-06-23.
01

Pattern identified

Recorded absences appear only from 2026-05-14 onward, after which exits are frequent and substantial time is recorded away from the property, tapering in the final weeks.

02

Why this may matter

  • The absence of any recorded exits before 2026-05-14 may reflect front-door sensor availability or configuration rather than the individual remaining indoors.
  • The high exit counts from mid-May may be consistent with frequent short door openings, visitors, or repeated brief trips, and should be interpreted alongside what is known about the household.
  • The reduction in exits during late June may reflect changed routine, changed detection, or the reduced telemetry at the end of the period.
03

What to explore

  • Was any door sensor installed, replaced or reconfigured in mid-May 2026?
  • How often does the individual usually leave the property, and who else uses the front door?
  • Do long absences correspond to known appointments, social activity or stays elsewhere?
What the data cannot tell us Sensor installation continuity and like-for-like coverage across comparison periods have not yet been independently verified. and Front door events cannot distinguish between the individual and other people entering or leaving.

Assessment finding

Routine consistency

Amber Low confidence

What was detected

  • The first-activity and last-activity consistency scores were both 0.0, with standard deviations of 276.76 and 429.56 minutes across 60 observed days.
  • The overall hourly profile similarity score across 62 behavioural days was 0.5882.
  • First morning activity averaged 04:49 with a standard deviation of 56 minutes across 50 observed values.
01

Pattern identified

Day start and end times varied widely while the broader shape of the day showed moderate similarity between consecutive days.

02

Why this may matter

  • Wide variation in first and last activity times may reflect a flexible lifestyle, variable nights, or days spent away from the property.
  • The consistency scores are bounded at zero and therefore indicate that variation exceeded the 120-minute scaling used by the method rather than a graded measure of irregularity.
  • Variability could indicate differing support or visitor patterns across days and should be interpreted alongside care records.
03

What to explore

  • Does the individual describe a regular daily routine, and what shapes when their day begins and ends?
  • Are there days each week with a different pattern, such as appointments or social commitments?
  • Would a more consistent routine be a goal the individual wishes to discuss at review?
What the data cannot tell us Consistency scores are derived from detected room-episode times and are affected by missing telemetry days. and These scores are descriptive of the supplied calculation only and carry no clinical reference or comparison group.

Potential anomalies

Patterns for closer review

Daily activity episodes rose sharply around mid-May, from 16 on 2026-05-12 to 62 on 2026-05-14 and 88 on 2026-05-26, and property exits changed from 0 to 14 on 2026-05-14.

  • This may reflect the addition or reactivation of sensors rather than a change in behaviour.
  • It could indicate a genuine change in circumstances, such as increased visitors, support or activity.
  • It should be interpreted alongside installation records before any comparison between the earlier and later parts of the period is relied upon.

Question for review Can the installation and configuration history for this property be checked to confirm whether coverage changed on or around 2026-05-14?

Detected activity declined in the final weeks, with weekly episode counts of 257 for the week from 2026-06-15 and 30 for the partial week from 2026-06-22, and 0 room transitions recorded on 2026-06-23.

  • This may reflect time spent away from the property or reduced in-home activity.
  • It could indicate telemetry loss at the end of the observed window, given no telemetry was received after 2026-06-23.
  • It should be interpreted alongside contact records for the same dates.

Question for review Is there any contemporaneous record of the individual's whereabouts or wellbeing during the period from 2026-06-20 onward?

15 SOS or safety-related telemetry events are present in the period and their meaning has not been confirmed.

  • These may reflect genuine activations, accidental presses, or testing, and no behavioural conclusion can be drawn from them here.
  • They must not be treated as ordinary activity and should be checked against the alarm response provider's records.
  • Their distribution across the period has not been established within the approved evidence.

Question for review Can the monitoring provider confirm the date, time and outcome of each of the 15 SOS or safety-related events?

Review and limitations

Professional review

Questions for professional review

  1. Does the individual's own account of their nights and daily routine align with the observed pattern of short overnight quiet periods and variable day start times?
  2. What changed, if anything, around 2026-05-14 in either the individual's circumstances or the sensor installation?
  3. How should the 15 unconfirmed SOS or safety-related events be verified before the Care Act review?
  4. Given the absence of kitchen telemetry, how will nutrition and meal preparation be evidenced at review?
  5. Are the frequent and lengthy recorded absences consistent with what the individual and their supporters describe?

Quality warnings

  • Average detected kitchen minutes per behavioural day could not be checked because the evidence metric is unavailable.
  • 29 assessment days contain no telemetry.
  • 15 SOS or safety-related telemetry events are present. Their meaning has not been confirmed and they must not be treated as ordinary activity.
  • 55757 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.
  • Sensor installation continuity and like-for-like coverage across comparison periods have not yet been independently verified.
  • Absence of a detected event does not prove that an activity did not occur.
This report is a decision-support summary of approved passive telemetry evidence for the reference dfdfdf. It does not diagnose, determine clinical risk, assess eligibility, recommend care changes or establish causation. Traffic-light statuses indicate prominence for professional review only, and confidence ratings describe the sufficiency of the telemetry for the stated observation, not confidence in any explanation. All findings must be interpreted by a qualified practitioner alongside direct conversation with the individual, care records and other professional sources.