A joint-guest blog post starring Franklin Hernández Paz from Spantech Limited, who is developing a first-of-its-kind DECT NR+ stack for the telecare industry.
Connect with Spantech Ltd on LinkedIn: Franklin Hernández Paz.
Why DECT NR+ mesh is the better direction for large-scale Technology Enabled Care
The UK’s digital telecare transition is modernising the connection between alarm units and Alarm Receiving Centres.
But modernising the route to the ARC does not necessarily modernise the whole alarm journey.
A service can use IP alarm protocols, cloud software and multi-network mobile connectivity while the final few metres between a person, their sensors and the local alarm infrastructure still rely on radio technology designed primarily for occasional pendant activations.
That technology has served telecare well.
But for new, large-scale and safety-critical TEC deployments, it should no longer be the automatic choice.
The industry now has an opportunity to move from individual radio links to intelligent, managed and route-diverse wireless networks.
DECT NR+ mesh provides a better foundation for that future.
869.2 MHz was designed for a simpler job
869.2 MHz is a small section of radio space used by many UK social alarm devices.
Think of it as a narrow shared lane through which pendants, sensors and alarm units send short messages.
Ofcom reserves the range from 869.2 to 869.25 MHz for social alarms. It limits transmission power and permits each transmitter to be on air for only 0.1% of the time. That is equivalent to a total of 3.6 seconds during any one-hour period for each transmitter.
It is not one allowance shared by the whole building, and it does not mean a pendant works for only 3.6 seconds. It means all messages sent by each radio must fit within a tightly controlled airtime allowance. (www.ofcom.org.uk)
That is entirely reasonable for a traditional alarm model:
- Someone presses a pendant.
- The pendant sends a short message.
- A nearby alarm unit receives it.
- The alarm unit contacts the ARC.
The limitation appears when we expect the same radio environment to support more frequent, two-way and actively supervised communication.
Ofcom also makes clear that short-range devices use shared spectrum on a non-protected, non-interference basis. This does not mean interference is inevitable, but users are not guaranteed protection from other permitted radio activity. (www.ofcom.org.uk)
Put simply:
869.2 MHz was designed for devices that speak briefly and infrequently. Modern TEC increasingly expects devices to hold an ongoing conversation.
Modern TEC needs a network, not just an alarm signal
Today’s TEC services may include falls detectors, smoke and environmental alarms, door and occupancy sensors, medication devices, wearables and proactive wellbeing technologies.
These devices are expected to do more than send a one-off alert. They increasingly need to:
- confirm that an alarm has been received;
- retry a message if delivery fails;
- report battery, connection and tamper status;
- support remote configuration and software updates;
- provide richer information about an incident;
- remain connected as people move through homes, communal areas and outdoor spaces;
- give responders useful context about where an alert originated;
- help operators understand the health of the wider network.
DECT NR+ supports mobility and handover between network nodes across indoor and outdoor environments. This means a wearable can remain connected as a person moves around a building or across a wider housing scheme.
Connectivity and precise positioning are not the same thing. DECT NR+ can provide the network foundation for location-aware services, while the exact level of positioning would depend on the complete solution—for example, using proximity to network nodes indoors and satellite positioning outdoors.
The value is therefore not simply knowing where a pendant is. A modern TEC network could help services understand:
- where an alert was raised;
- whether the person has moved since raising it;
- whether their wearable remains connected;
- whether the alarm has a dependable route through the network.
Each of these interactions may involve only a small amount of data. Together, however, they create an ongoing, two-way conversation between devices and the service.
Traditional telecare asks:
Can the device send an alarm?
Modern TEC should ask:
Can the system confirm delivery, maintain connectivity, provide useful context and adapt when network conditions change?
ETSI identified the direction of travel in 2012
This is not a new concern created to promote a new technology.
In 2012, ETSI published a report examining how established wireless alarm systems could be future-proofed while supporting emerging applications such as assisted living, improved medical monitoring and richer information transmission.
Among its recommended requirements were fast alarm transmission, resilience to changes inside buildings and:
Redundant signal and transmission paths (e.g. multi path networks).
ETSI had already recognised that reliable alarm services would increasingly require alternative communication paths rather than dependence on one normal route. (ETSI)
The report also anticipated the integration of alarm, social-care, eHealth and home-automation applications, with different types of information requiring appropriate priority and reliability across local and backbone networks. (ETSI)
DECT NR+ had not yet been developed.
But ETSI had already described many of the requirements it is now designed to address.
Reliability belongs to the complete system
No radio frequency or network technology is automatically safe.
A dependable TEC service requires more than successful transmission from a pendant.
It requires:
- delivery confirmation;
- supervision and fault reporting;
- alternative communication paths;
- resilient gateways and backhaul;
- appropriate power backup;
- operational monitoring;
- tested escalation processes.
The relevant question is not simply whether the pendant transmitted.
It is whether the complete system received, understood and acted on the alarm.
This is why commissioners should be cautious about focusing procurement solely on radio range, headline battery life or individual device compliance.
The complete alarm chain matters.
Large buildings expose the limitations
The restrictions of traditional social-alarm radio may have little practical effect in an individual home containing one pendant and one alarm unit.
They become more significant in an extra-care scheme, supported-living development or multi-storey building containing hundreds of connected devices.
Normal activity may be manageable. The real test comes when conditions are abnormal:
- several alarms occur together;
- failed messages cause repeated attempts;
- equipment reconnects after a power cut;
- building work changes radio conditions;
- a receiver or repeater becomes unavailable;
- a person moves between flats, communal areas and outdoor spaces.
This does not mean every 869.2 MHz deployment will fail. Performance depends on the product, protocol, installation and building.
Nor does the frequency itself force manufacturers to use a one-way or single-hop design. A supplier can add acknowledgements, supervision and repeaters.
The issue is that 869.2 MHz provides limited airtime and radio diversity, while many established installations still depend on one receiver or a predetermined repeater path.
Coverage is not the same as resilience
Traditional commissioning often focuses on range.
A pendant is tested in different rooms. The alarm reaches the receiver. The installation passes.
But a range test asks:
Can this device reach its normal receiver today?
A resilience test asks:
What happens if that receiver or route is unavailable when the person needs help?
A repeater may extend coverage without creating a genuinely independent route. The device may simply become dependent on the repeater instead of the original receiver.
It is the difference between one long road and a road network.
A longer road improves reach.
A network provides alternatives when the normal route is blocked.
Legacy cabling can also restrict innovation
Radio is not the only legacy constraint.
Many communal systems were designed around fixed cable routes, central controllers, hard-wired call points and infrastructure installed for an earlier generation of telecare.
That infrastructure may remain serviceable. But it can also determine:
- where devices can be installed;
- which products can be connected;
- how easily equipment can be moved;
- whether gardens and communal areas can be covered;
- how disruptive future upgrades will be.
Adding a new sensor, adapting a flat or changing a care pathway can become a building project rather than a service configuration.
The result is that tomorrow’s care model can become dictated by yesterday’s cable routes.
The answer is not to remove every wire.
Gateways, power supplies and critical backhaul may still be best served by resilient wired connections. The aim is to avoid forcing every future endpoint, alarm route and innovation to follow infrastructure installed decades earlier.
A managed wireless mesh could provide a flexible layer that expands as needs change, enabling phased estate modernisation without requiring complete recabling.
The future of connected care should not be limited by the physical layout of the system it replaces.
The market is already demanding more
Current product development shows that expectations are changing.
Tunstall’s Lifeline Pendant, for example, is promoted around secure digital communication and Periodic Link Testing, which regularly checks whether the pendant remains present, connected and functioning. Tunstall positions this as providing better visibility for monitoring teams than a simple transmit-only alarm. (Tunstall Healthcare)
This is an important market signal.
Modern telecare devices are increasingly expected not only to send an alarm, but also to report their condition and support proactive supervision.
The question is no longer whether more capability can be engineered around traditional radio. Clearly, it can.
The better question is whether repeatedly extending a tightly constrained alarm-radio model is the right long-term architecture for large-scale TEC.
DECT NR+ turns radio links into a managed network
DECT NR+, formally standardised as DECT-2020 New Radio, offers a fundamentally different approach.
It was designed to support local-area wireless networks using point-to-point, star and mesh topologies. ETSI describes the mesh architecture as supporting high device densities and autonomous routing that can adapt dynamically to mobile users and interference. (ETSI)
In a properly designed DECT NR+ mesh:
- A pendant or sensor connects to a suitable nearby node.
- Powered nodes can forward messages for other devices.
- The network selects a route towards the monitoring platform.
- If conditions change, a device can associate with another suitable node.
- Multiple backend-connected nodes can reduce reliance on one gateway.
Devices can evaluate available connections using signal quality and routing cost. Where several suitable next hops exist, the system can select an appropriate route towards a gateway or backend connection. (ETSI)
Battery-constrained wearables do not all have to become repeaters. They can remain low-power endpoints, while appropriately powered nodes provide the routing infrastructure. (ETSI)
This changes the design principle from:
Every device must reach this receiver.
To:
Every device should have one or more dependable routes through the network.
For large-scale TEC, that is the more appropriate architecture.
Why mesh is the better direction
A well-designed DECT NR+ mesh could provide capabilities that traditional alarm-radio deployments often struggle to deliver.
Alternative routes
If one path becomes degraded, a device can select or associate with another suitable node - provided the deployment has been designed with genuine overlapping coverage.
Fewer single points of failure
Multiple routing nodes and backend-connected gateways can reduce dependence on one receiver, one repeater or one path out of the building.
Better support for dense deployments
DECT NR+ mesh is designed to support large numbers of devices and autonomous routing, making it a more natural foundation for schemes containing hundreds or potentially thousands of endpoints. (ETSI)
Mobility across a scheme
Handover support allows devices to change their association when connection quality deteriorates or another suitable network node becomes available. This is important when people move between rooms, floors, communal areas and outdoor spaces. (ETSI)
Greater operational visibility
A managed network can expose information about connections, routes, unavailable nodes and gateway health. This creates the opportunity to identify emerging weaknesses before they affect an alarm.
Stronger foundations for security and lifecycle management
The DECT-2020 NR architecture includes secure joining and separate link-level and end-to-end security layers, with ciphering and integrity protection defined by the standard. (ETSI)
Infrastructure that can evolve
The same wireless layer could support alarms, environmental monitoring, device management, mobility and future connected-care services rather than being tied to one alarm-message format.
The direction of travel is clear:
From individual devices transmitting towards one receiver, to a managed network that understands how its devices are connected.
What self-healing should mean
Self-healing should not imply that the network is impossible to break.
A more accurate definition is:
When one route becomes degraded or unavailable, the network can select another suitable route - provided an alternative exists.
That final qualification matters.
A resilient mesh requires:
- sufficient node density;
- overlapping coverage;
- alternative physical routes;
- backed-up power for critical nodes;
- multiple gateways where appropriate;
- resilient external connectivity;
- continuous network-health monitoring;
- secure provisioning and software maintenance.
A mesh network with only one usable route is still effectively a single-path system.
DECT NR+ does not guarantee safety by itself.
It provides the technical foundation from which a more resilient, observable and adaptable service can be engineered.
EN 50134 enables this change
EN 50134 does not require the industry to remain on 869.2 MHz.
The BSI series covers system requirements, trigger devices, local units and controllers, interconnections and communications, and application guidance. It defines requirements for the social alarm system without prescribing one radio frequency as the mandatory bearer. (BSI Group)
A DECT NR+ implementation would not become compliant merely because it uses mesh networking.
The complete system must still demonstrate that it meets the relevant requirements for alarm triggering, transmission, fault reporting, supervision, response and end-to-end operation.
EN 50134 should provide the safety guardrails for innovation.
It should protect service users from weak implementation - not protect established technology from better alternatives.
From individual alarm systems to neighbourhood infrastructure
ISO 25553-1:2026 takes the discussion beyond an individual pendant, property or housing scheme.
The standard provides requirements and guidance for planning, developing, implementing and evaluating smart multigenerational neighbourhoods. It describes enabling systems that support people of different ages and abilities as their needs change throughout life.
It applies both to new developments and to the regeneration and retrofitting of existing neighbourhoods and real estate. (ISO)
ISO 25553-1 does not prescribe DECT NR+, or any other radio technology.
But it creates an important strategic question for commissioners:
What shared, resilient and scalable infrastructure will allow connected care to operate across an entire neighbourhood?
A dense DECT NR+ estate could provide part of that answer.
Rather than every housing provider, alarm service or care pathway installing its own isolated hub, proprietary repeater network and fixed cable routes, a neighbourhood could develop a reusable local wireless layer.
An estate of DECT NR+-enabled wearables and sensors, supported by appropriately positioned powered routing nodes and multiple gateways, could connect:
- individual homes;
- extra-care and supported-living schemes;
- corridors and communal areas;
- gardens and shared outdoor spaces;
- community facilities;
- future health, care and wellbeing devices.
The infrastructure could support alarm delivery, environmental monitoring, device supervision, mobility, location context and proactive-care services.
It could also allow connectivity to become a shared neighbourhood capability rather than a separate technology island for every individual service.
This suggests a coherent technology strategy:
- EN 50134 provides assurance around the safety and performance of social-alarm functions;
- ISO 25553-1 establishes the wider ambition for enabling systems across smart multigenerational neighbourhoods;
- DECT NR+ mesh could provide the scalable local connectivity layer through which those systems operate.
This is an architectural opportunity rather than a claim made by the ISO standard itself.
But the strategic implication is significant:
The opportunity is not simply to build a better pendant network. It is to create reusable digital care infrastructure for the whole neighbourhood.
What commissioners should require
For new communal and large-scale TEC deployments, commissioners should require suppliers to demonstrate:
1. Genuine route diversity
The service should continue operating when a receiver, routing node, gateway or normal communication path is deliberately removed.
2. End-to-end delivery confirmation
The system should prove that the intended platform or ARC received the alarm - not merely that a pendant transmitted.
3. Continuous network visibility
Operators should be able to see deteriorating connections, route changes, missing devices, gateway faults and power conditions.
4. Mobility and useful location context
Suppliers should demonstrate connectivity - and any claimed positioning accuracy - across flats, corridors, floors, communal spaces, gardens and other intended operating areas.
5. Performance under adverse conditions
Testing should include simultaneous alarms, power restoration, interference, building changes and the loss of network components.
6. A complete assurance case
Evidence should cover the applicable parts of EN 50134, cybersecurity, software maintenance, UK radio requirements and the complete deployed configuration.
7. A neighbourhood infrastructure strategy
Commissioners should ask whether each deployment will become another isolated technology island or contribute to a shared connectivity foundation capable of supporting future services and the ambitions of ISO 25553-1.
For new large schemes, DECT NR+ mesh should become the reference architecture against which alternatives are compared.
The burden of proof should no longer be on commissioners to explain why they need route diversity.
It should be on suppliers to explain why a new safety-critical deployment should still depend on one normal radio path.
A better way forward
869.2 MHz has not suddenly stopped working.
It remains suitable for many simple, low-density social-alarm applications.
But it was designed for short, infrequent alarm traffic. Modern TEC increasingly requires secure two-way communication, proactive supervision, mobility, location context, remote management, richer data and continuous evidence that the infrastructure is healthy.
ETSI was already anticipating this transition in 2012 when it called for multi-path communications, resilience to building changes and a system-level approach to reliability.
The emergence of DECT NR+ now provides a credible technical foundation for delivering those principles.
DECT NR+ is not technology for technology’s sake.
It represents a shift from a wireless alarm accessory to a managed safety network:
- from range to route diversity;
- from isolated links to managed connectivity;
- from fixed endpoints to mobility;
- from predetermined paths to adaptive routing;
- from infrastructure constrained by old wiring to a platform that can evolve;
- from individual schemes to the possibility of neighbourhood-wide digital care infrastructure.
EN 50134 has not had its day.
ISO 25553-1 now widens the ambition.
And DECT NR+ mesh offers a practical direction for building the scalable, resilient connectivity layer that the next generation of TEC will require.
For new large-scale infrastructure, 869.2 MHz should no longer be the unquestioned default.
The next generation of telecare should not be built around the hope that one radio route continues to work. It should be built around a network designed to find another route when it does not.