Hi Karsten, I was under the impression that time was recorded more frequently and under additional constraints, the constrants ranging from +/- some percent variation or +/- some value. Additionally, another impression, is that the 'rate of change' is significant.
From a family member who had open heart surgery, post-op was difficult because of hampered bodily control over the heart and rates of change of temperature become significant. From IT/Engineering the Nyquist Sampling Theorem is a baseline governing sample rate. It seems to me that what is being sampled here is the max value of temperature and whatever happens in-between gets overlooked. It would seem that equipment malfunctions could render the data useless. It also appears that that pseudo real-time activity of the temperature variable is missing. Regards! -Thomas Clark Karsten Hilbert wrote: >>Consider a maximum temperature measured over a 12 hour period - or an >>average. At the moment the date/time will be the beginning of the 12 hr >>period. >> >>My suggestion is that clinicians will record this at the end of the 12 >>hours and the date/time should reflect this. >> >>That is to say: >> >>a 12hr maximum temperature of 36 C over the period 0600-1800 on 2004 Jan >> 01 should be: >> >>2004 Jan 01 1800 12hr max Temperature = 36 C >> >>and not >> >>2004 Jan 01 0600 12hr max Temperature = 36 C >> >> >I think one should think of it this way: The temperature value >(be that average or maximum) gets recorded as soon as it is >known (hopefully). Hence the second version (@0600) seems >wrong. The first version seems OK but it seems to hide >something implicitely. There are actually two things being >recorded: a) the maximum temperature - recorded at a given >time. b) the time range this maximum applies to - eg an >interval that needs to be recorded, too ! > >It just so happens that many recorded values will have their >time of recording and their time of occurrence *coincide*. In >many cases that will suffice, too, and in many cases - say GP >level free text for an encounter - it does not matter too much >whether I record the progress now when I hear it or two hours >later. Nonetheless are there two times: recording and >occurrence. Which should - in cases where it matters - be >explicitely modelled. > >Paper charts make us forget about this distinction because we >routinely lie about the time of recording, eg. we put down the >time of occurrence while we actually mean that of recording. > >Karsten > > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
