1/min, definitely!
Cardiac output is measured as liters/minute. Liters of what? We could have used
the unit liters{blood}/minute, but I have never seen that done. It is
considered obvious from the context. Likewise with other units. Velocity is
measure as meters/second, not meters{travelled}/second. One could argue that
meters{travelled} makes it clear that it is not meters{altitude}, but that is
generally considered obvious from the context.
For some reason there is this temptation to add a fictive unit ({beats},
{count} etc.) when the number itself is unit less. This is not necessary. The
context is always sufficient, just like in the cases that have a unit. Let us
cut through the unclarity of UCUM and keep it simple and basic.
My argument is probably influenced by my background as a physicist. But if no
one has objected to 1/min in pulse/heartbeat, then I see no reason to deviate
from the basics in ECG or to modify pulse/heartbeat.
Vennlig hilsen
Ivar Yrke
Senior systemutvikler
DIPS AS
Telefon +47 75 59 24 06
Mobil +47 90 78 89 33
Fra: openEHR-clinical [mailto:[email protected]] På
vegne av Heather Leslie
Sendt: 5. september 2018 08:00
Til: For openEHR clinical discussions <[email protected]>
Emne: ECG archetype advice required
Hi everyone,
I've just been facilitating the most recent reviews on the ECG archetype and
would appreciate some advice on two issues.
The current atrial and ventricular rates are modelled as a Quantity (frequency)
ie 1/min. However UCUM is unclear and there seems to be a few options,
including {Beats}/min, {beats}/min and {H.B} is represented in another context,
so maybe {H.B}/min is valid as well. Note that if we decide that it is
appropriate to modify to one of these specific UCUM units, then to be
consistent we will need to consider modifying the Pulse/heartbeat OBSERVATION
as well - currently also modelled as a frequency of 1/min.
In addition, I'd appreciate some advice as to how we could get access to the
latest draft of the ISO/IEEE standard for ECG - I think it is ISO/IEEE
11073-10406. We'd like to make sure there is alignment between the standard and
the archetype before further reviews.
Kind regards
Heather
Dr Heather Leslie
MB BS, FRACGP, FACHI, GAICD
M +61 418 966 670
Skype: heatherleslie
Twitter: @atomicainfo, @clinicalmodels & @omowizard
www.atomicainformatics.com
[cid:[email protected]]
(frequ
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
