+1
I would echo Ivar's comments - keep it simple and use 1/min. It is clear we
are talking about the rate of cardiac electrical activity from the context.
The use of the word 'beats' would also undoubtedly (rightly) come under
fire from cardiological/intensivist pedants like me - as a 'beat' is an old
word deriving from the *observation of heart sounds*, whereas what you are
measuring is cardiac electrical activity - and it's perfectly possible for
the two to be different things, as in a PEA cardiac arrest.
Also, any of the more specific units such as '{beats}/min' could possibly
confuse and make it harder to programmatically compare or display alongside
other clinically relevant 'frequencies' expressed as 1/min such as:
frequency of ventricular pacing spikes, frequency of aortic balloon pump
counterpulsations, etc
Marcus
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 08:39, Ivar Yrke <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
> (frequ
> _______________________________________________
> openEHR-clinical mailing list
> [email protected]
>
> http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
>
_______________________________________________
openEHR-clinical mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-clinical_lists.openehr.org
